Sometimes, We Celebrate Violence.

I saw a movie this weekend in which there is a scene where the audiences learns that a young girl—maybe eight years old with adorable, dark brown curls and innocent, inquisitive eyes—is being sexually abused by her uncle while they are away on a hunting trip. In a very tense and impactful scene, the girl takes the shotgun and turns it on the molester, her uncle. She points it directly at him and says nothing. He inches forward speaking softly to her, telling her to put the weapon down. The intensity of the scene reaches the apex as the audience knows that the girl is either going to shoot this terrible man or he is going to grab the gun.

He grabs the gun. And she shudders back a sob.

And in the theater, there is almost a collective click of the tongue signaling our disapproval. Maybe, rationally, we might all agree that the best course of action would be that she told some authorities and this man was arrested and punished. But in that moment, we all understood that if she shot him, we wouldn’t blame her. In that moment, we might even celebrate her action—her very violent action.

Think of other situations like this that we, individually and collectively, understand violence as either morally permissible or morally good. Self-defense against someone that is causing arbitrary harm—a rapist or murderer. Think about a wife resisting her abusive husband. As a society, we even have laws that forgive violence done in situations in which a person is not directly defending themselves in that moment but has finally snapped after repeatedly being abused or subjected to violence themselves.

Or think larger. Just war. We celebrate violence in these cases. We might say we mourn the necessity to resort to violence, but we celebrate the moral courage of those who chose to use it for the good of themselves and others.

Now spiral out just a little bit more. Think about the atrocities done to the Jewish people at the hands of the Nazi party. Technically, maybe Hitler never pulled the lever on any gas chamber. Maybe he never pulled a trigger. But let’s imagine a history that is different. Let’s imagine Hitler at a rally during the height of the concentration of Jews (and others) in work camps. In the crowd is one man who has, so far, passed undetected. He goes to this rally just to hear it, to see the face of this man that has created such a hate-storm against him and his family. And as he sees the man, he is filled with the images of his friends and children and his wife that he lost to the camps. So, he wrestles a gun from a guard and kills Hitler.

If that were the history, would we celebrate that man a hero? Would we mourn his use of violence? What makes his use of violence acceptable or heroic? Is it the defense of others? Is it the fact that he is a resisting an unjust oppressor? I mean, this feels like part of the DNA of the United States, yea? One of our most prized portions of our national canon is a declaration of war—one we call the Declaration of Independence. We celebrate that moment every year—a moment our national ancestors told tyrants and oppressors that we have had enough and we wouldn’t sit back anymore. We would respond with violence. We celebrate that. Every year.

On January 20, a man named Richard Spencer was in D.C. celebrating President Trump’s inauguration. During an interview, a protester walked up and punched him in the face. Why would someone do that?

Richard Spencer is a white supremacist leader that runs the National Policy Institute, a policy think tank determined to further the causes of white nationalism and all that comes with it. Just to give you a taste, here’s a selection of his thoughts:

“Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence."

“At the end of the day, America belongs to white men.”

“When we hear any professional ‘Latino’ support this or that social program, we sense in our guts that her policy proscriptions are rationalizations for nationalism. She might say ‘more immigration is good’; she means ‘The Anglos are finished!’”

He’s advocated for a “peaceful ethnic cleansing” of non-whites from the U.S.

He believes in government-sponsored forced-sterilization, defending it saying: “We are undergoing a sad process of degeneration. …We will need to reverse it using the state and the government. You incentivize people with higher intelligence, you incentivize people who are healthy to have children. And it sounds terrible and nasty, but there would be a great use of contraception. … [The sterilized] could still enjoy sex. You are not ruining their life.”

His rhetoric is disgusting but carefully crafted. It’s incendiary but not threatening. He’s able to create a movement of political and social upheaval or belligerence against minorities.

In response to the attack against this terrible man, I have seen many happy. The man who punched Spencer is celebrated. Others still have renounced the use of violence saying “You shouldn’t punch people because they have detestable beliefs” and “We don’t cheer violence against speech.”

This made me think back to the Trump rallies during the campaign season. We saw violence there, too. Protesters were punched, violence against speech. Trump celebrated that violence and many found that horrifying.

I bring this up for two reasons. Firstly, I think it’s fair. If we are going to question the use of violence, we need to question what makes punching Richard Spencer permissible but violence against anti-Trump protesters impermissible. It’s not simply a double standard.

Let’s go back to the movie I saw. We believe violence can be used for good, or at the very least in a way that is permissible. The uncle’s use of violence against the little girl was absolutely wrong. A husband that beats his wife is using violence impermissibly. But responding to that violence with violence would be permissible. So, we judge the morality of the use of violence by the circumstances surrounding it. Because of the violence he used against others, we would celebrate the use of violence to kill Hitler. There is something about being the victim, being the oppressed, or acting on behalf of the oppressed that we find heroic, courageous, or simply acceptable.

Richard Spencer is not Hitler. And as far as I know, he isn’t beating his wife. But his speech isn’t just speech either. We need to recognize the power of words and forcefully advocating policies or beliefs that would result in violence against people. He advocates for the use of force to remove fellow citizens from this country based solely on their skin color, religion, and ethnic lineage.

Personally, I think we shouldn’t punch racists simply for being racists. I think we should resist everything they stand for. I think we should organize. I think we should educate tirelessly. I think we should shout them down and drown out their disgusting voices.

But I can understand why people celebrated the punch. (Obviously, if it were anything more than a punch he walked away from, I would hope many more people would decry it.) And it’s not the same as Trump celebrating his supporters punching dissident protesters at his rallies. The circumstances are one of the oppressed vs. the oppressor. Spencer is a member of a powerful majority fomenting the use of force against minorities. The others are a group of minorities protesting the advocacy of that use of force at a political rally. Those are dramatically different circumstances, ones we should consider thoughtfully.

If, like me, you want a political environment where peaceful ideas are thoughtfully exchanged and debated, then we must recognize that some ideas are not just speech but have a violence packaged within them—not in the sense that they hurt feelings but in the sense that they will cause actual physical violence against someone if the idea is enacted. And we should work towards that end: a thoughtful exchange of peaceful ideas, not emotionally gratifying instances of punching racists.

The Goats and the Affordable Care Act

“When I was sick, you visited me.”

Or, now: “‘When I was sick, you visited me.’”

Originally, Jesus said those words. You can find them in Matthew 25, in a parable referred to as “The Parable of the Judgment of the Nations.” In the parable, Jesus tells the story of the end of days, the final judgment of all people. And he relates it like a king dividing up his flock, goats on one side and sheep on the other. But the goats and the sheep aren’t just a natural division based on nationality or religion or ethnicity or lineage. Instead, in the parable, the sheep are the moral people and the goats are the immoral ones.

For the sheep, they are given the Kingdom based solely on the good deeds they did to the King: fed him when he was hungry; clothed him when he was naked; welcomed him when he was a immigrant; cared for him when he was sick; visited him when he was in prison. There is no mention of faith, dogma, or affiliation. In fact, the sheep are stunned, saying, “When did we do these things for you?” God responds saying what was done to the “least of these,” was done to him also. Very powerful.

And for the goats, they receive the opposite treatment. They are cursed and sent to “eternal fire” because they failed to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, welcome the stranger, heal the sick, visit the imprisoned. And God reckons that this failure to do to others was, in turn, a rejection of him. Like the sheep, the goats are shocked.

These words were more recently spoken by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) at 1:11AM on January 12 during a vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Or better said, these were the words Sen. Kaine quoted as a protest to that vote (see the video here).

This repeal of the healthcare law without a viable replacement is set to remove healthcare plans for millions of Americans, mainly poor Americans, throughout the country. So Sen. Kaine’s protest here, using the words of Jesus is poignant. What we do to the “least of these,” we do to God. And these actions will reverberate through eternity.

Many of my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters rest on the laurels of their religious affiliation and “faith”. But as James teaches, “Can faith save you?...Faith without works is dead.” If we believe our actions are not intimately connected to the eternal salvation – the true reconciliation back to God – that we have faith in, we might take notes on the shock the goats display.

Reflection on the FSU Shooting

I study and teach at Florida State University and the shooting that occurred on Thursday morning has caused quite a reaction in my community.

Public tragedies are pictures of both the best and worst of human nature. At once, we have both terrifying acts of violence placed directly beside breathtaking displays of unity as communities band together for support. This unity is often awe-inspiring and hopeful as if we are standing up to a tyrant whose name is fear or sadness proclaiming we won’t be subjugated or defeated.

It is in these moments that the importance of community cannot properly be captured in words.

Yet, perhaps equally a part of human nature, it is in these times of tragedy that we seek explanation. We want reasons and answers to our questions. We want to know patterns so we can make sense of what seems absolutely random. And it is here that we have the potential to slip into an old pattern of explanation that might cause more damage than good.

We need to moderate our language about this shooting. And this is going to sound strange, but we need to release God from the responsibility for things he had nothing to do with. We need to accept our own agency and our own responsibility for the things that happen in this world, even if that means sometimes we are subject to seemingly random acts of violence or luck.

There is a story and pictures going around of a student who was targeted by the shooter but had the bullet stopped by the books he had just gotten at the library. Thank God he is alive and uninjured. But he said, “The truth is I was almost killed tonight and God intervened.”

This is a devastating claim to make. God stopped his bullet but not the others that injured three students and killed the shooter. Why do we think that? There are many problems here.

And this line of thinking goes further. God becomes responsible for all tragedies. Either she did or did not stop people from dying. God saves some and not others.

We are giving God responsibility for things he is not responsible. We, human beings, make decisions. We do things, either because of decisions or circumstances or whatever. But we do them. Not God.

Yet God is still present. God is present in all things and THIS is exactly where we should be finding her!

God was present in that library long before the shooter arrived. He was present in the doors that were being opened in the minds of those students as they discovered knowledge. God was present in the hard work and determination of kids burning midnight oil to finish their work. God was present in the laughter and joy that was broken by the gunfire. God was present as students worked together to ensure the safety of one another. God was present in the just application of force to keep the shooter from hurting anyone else. God is present in the tragedy of the loss of human life, watching over her creation as a loving Father does.

And God is most certainly present in the comfort and strength we give one another. God is here. Always. Forever.

But God is not, and was not, a puppet master, saving some and not others, pulling strings on some divine whim that we cannot understand or fathom. God resides not only in experiences on the edge of our lives, guiding a shooters hand towards some and not others. God resides at the center of our lives – in our happiness, our comfort, our joy, our pursuit of knowledge, our community.

Let us thank God we are alive and that this tragedy was not as bad as it could have been. Let us remind each other that our lives are temporary and we should take solace in our community. Let us pray God will comfort those most impacted by this tragedy. 

Why Defense of the Faith Destroys Faith

My bookshelf has five or six books about the “defense of the faith” in which the authors attempt to assuage the doubts of the readers and prove, once and for all, to the critics that Christianity is not only a reasonable faith to have, but the only reasonable choice to make!

These books disgust me.

I remember when I was an undergraduate, starting my career in religious studies, and feeling like my back was against the wall in the classroom. I had been warned when I was a young Christian in middle and high school that I would go to college and my professors would try and destroy my faith. So I read these books and practiced the defense in my head. At the instance that one of my professors cast doubt on the doctrine I had been taught in Sunday School, my hand would shoot into the air with an answer pre-packaged from my books tumbling out of my mouth. And I would leave class feeling gratified that I had stood stalwart in the face of those who mean to destroy Christianity.

But as I practiced these answers in my head, I found that I was actually battling my own doubt – a doubt that was based on my own experience and reason. I was attempting to shape my faith in God into something someone else told me it was supposed to be. It was exhausting. And I found myself being a person I didn't like. After all, I read the Bible on my own; I studied it. I kept a notebook full of questions and observations that I made. And these questions, often times, were the same questions that professors and scholars were asking.

I wasn't being honest with myself. And I wasn't being honest with what I thought the Truth of God might be.

Why did God endorse slavery? Why did God require genocide? Does that mean those things aren't intrinsically wrong? How do I reconcile dramatic changes throughout history and the way that we make moral decisions? Would God really eternally reward terrible people who believe in him and eternally punish beautiful good-hearted people who struggle with assenting to that belief? Does God really answer prayers to help American Christians find their car keys but not save thousands from a tsunami? What do I do when my experience and reason contradicts Christian dogma and the Bible? Is God’s truth bigger than Christianity? How do I deal with an evil Church (not just imperfect, but evil)? If certain parts of Christian history were proved inaccurate, does my faith in a living God go away?

The problem I had with these books and this entire area of Christian discipleship (labeled “apologetics”) is that it wants to say that there are answers to these questions and those answers are CERTAIN. Not only can we have faith in these answers, but there ARE NO OTHER ANSWERS. They believe, and teach, that good Christians can and will be certain about these answers. There is no room for dissent. Otherwise, it is an “attack on the faith.”

But there is no “the faith.”

There is my faith. And there is your faith. And there is our faith. But there is no one “The Faith” to which we all must attempt to wall ourselves into.

I was recently speaking with an undergrad in my class and she was relating similar feelings as I had of constantly being on guard and on the defensive against professors who want to destroy “the faith.” And I was part of a lovely book club that read a book by a prominent anti-religious intellectual where several of the Christian members said they had a knee-jerk reaction to defend Christianity against his attacks. My first reaction to both was, “Why?”

I've been there and it’s exhausting trying to adopt a faith that isn't my own. My faith must be built on my answers, my reasons, my experiences of the living God and the world she created, and my understanding of the holy texts.

Eventually, I realized those questions I had (see above) needed to be answered and they needed to be answered in light of the Truth. And if Truth existed, I needed to find it on my own and not take people’s word for it. I realized I had been defending this Truth (or what I thought it was) from these questions. To do that, I had my back turned to Truth and stood in between it and the questions, attempting to deflect those attacks. My eyes weren't on the Truth; my back was turned to it. So I stopped. I let the questions fly by and I lobbed some of my own.

If Truth exists, it can defend itself. It doesn't need me to defend it.

In this, I realized that the things I had been taught (as “truth” or “the faith”) was really just a bunch of stuff built onto Truth. (Or in place of it.)

But Truth, the Truth of God, is elusive. We can never be certain of it. That, after all, is the key to faith! “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” (John 20:29)

Embrace your doubt! When you hear someone casting doubt or aspersions on Christianity, don’t turn your back on the Truth. Let those questions become your own and let them break away the pieces of your faith that someone else built up onto it.

It isn't our job to defend God and Truth. But, as Christians, it is our job to seek him and his Truth.

If you do this, I think you will find it is freeing. You get to live your faith, not someone else’s.

Ferguson and the Constitution: Being a Second-Class Citizen.

This is an American citizen aiming his gun as protesters gather around the base camp for the Bureau of Land Management near Cliven Bundy’s ranch in Nevada in April of 2012.

This is an image of two American citizens participating in “open carry” in Texas in December 2013.

This is the police in Ferguson, MO, mobilizing against the citizens as peaceful protests involved riots and looting overnight during the first weekend after the killing of Michael Brown. 

When I see the reactions people are having to the protests in Ferguson, MO, I can’t help but think of the first two images, the armed protest against the Bureau of Land Management for Cliven Bundy and open carry. And I can’t help but think of all the reasons we have heard over the past two years about why the Second Amendment is so imperative for our democracy. And I can’t help but be appalled by the hypocrisy of it all.

An individual's right to arm and protect oneself is sacrosanct by many in this country. That right is often buttressed by its enumeration in our Constitution and the notion that it provides a limit to the executive powers of our government. In essence, our self-armament ensures the freedom to criticize the government, in particular its executive action - the law enforcement. As someone who disagrees with this right, I can only surmise that the protection to possessing lethal force as a counter-measure to an overbearing state ... well... necessitates the intent to use that lethal force when and if the time comes.

Cliven Bundy and the protesters that supported him provided a very ostentatious show of force. They brought their guns. They invited the press to take pictures of them with their guns. And those guns were aimed at the Bureau of Land Management, the executive branch – the law enforcement. And they were called patriots by many for doing this.

The people of Ferguson felt that the killing of Michael Brown was the final straw in a long string of violence against their community by the police. They feel an overbearing state that does not enforce a law designed to protect their rights. So they engaged in the most sacred right of our democratic nation, voicing grievances - in this case protest. They did not, however, take advantage of the second amendment to take up arms. They did not arm themselves. They did not show guns. They did not invite the press to take pictures of their arsenals. They did not wear legal assault rifles on their backs.

Some within their ranks broke laws, certainly, but it still isn't clear who, how, or what caused those instances. They did not attack law enforcement. They did not brandish guns. They did not do the very thing the Second Amendment was purportedly designed for. They did, however, take advantage of their First Amendment rights (the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances), which it seems to most – including the journalists present in Ferguson – was responded to with an extreme show and then use of force.

I guess my confusion and question is: when is it necessary to defend your rights against the state, even in a lethal way, and what about the Ferguson situation has not met that standard? What did Cliven Bundy do or have done to him that those in Ferguson did not?

I mean, can you imagine if the citizens of Ferguson armed themselves like the first two photos? Can you imagine if they used the language of “refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants?” Can you imagine?

This is what it means to be a second-class citizen. Do black people have Second Amendment rights? Do they even have First Amendment rights?

Reactions to the Hobby Lobby Case

On June 30^th, the Supreme Court ruled that the family-owned, multi-million dollar corporation Hobby Lobby does not have to provide contraceptive coverage as part of the healthcare package to their employees despite the Affordable Care Act. This decision was made under the legal reasoning that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) grants accommodation for those who are substantially burdened by law (so long as certain other requisites are met – see a previous blog explaining this).

This ruling was poorly made. It does a great injustice to common men and women of conscience, regardless of their official faith credo. Nevertheless, it is a great opportunity to discuss and correct the ways we consider legal justification for rights in this country.

I have given my own take on some of the problems with this case in a previous blog. Rather than rehash those same concerns, I thought I would take a different tack by instead focusing on the reasoning and rationalization that some folks sympathetic to Hobby Lobby have been using.

Here are some common reactions I have been hearing:

“Those drugs abort fetuses.”

Or, perhaps put less dramatically, “Hobby Lobby simply doesn’t want to pay for drugs that cause abortions.” Either way, this reaction offers a reasonable position on its face IF this were actually the case. In reality, the four drugs (Plan B, ella, and 2 IUDs) Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are “religiously opposed to” DO NOT produce abortions.

Dr. Ron Hammel, senior director of ethics for the Catholic Health Association in the US once said, “"One of the well known truisms in ethics is that good moral judgments depend in part on good facts." There has been a considerable amount of research that has gone into learning how contraceptives work, especially these four, and the newest research has been showing that they do not interrupt established pregnancies or inhibit implantation. There are articles – some by credible news sources, some by Christian publications – that discuss this research here, here, here, and here.

As Dennis Sullivan, director of Cedarville University's Center for Bioethics who has recently peer-reviewed much of the research for publication says, "Our claims of conscience should be based on scientific fact, and we should be willing to change our claims if facts change."

Nevertheless, I can imagine some people would still feel wary. I can appreciate that. I would warn those folks to abstain from using those forms of contraceptives if they feel this way. But to limit another person’s legal rights, the moral reasoning required must be stringent! Limiting another person from partaking in a universal entitlement due to our idiosyncratic or sectarian beliefs should be done only in the direst of circumstances. Having no scientific evidence to validate personal fears of material complicity hardly even comes close to meeting those requirements.

“No one is being denied access to those four drugs.”

This is a straw-man argument. No one is proposing that Hobby Lobby is taking away their employees’ legal right to purchase and use those drugs. This misrepresents the problem and misdirects our attention from what should actually be considered.

The ACA, like it or not, created healthcare coverage as part of a compensation package to be a universal entitlement. It was determined by the Supreme Court to be a legal and constitutional regulation. These four drugs were included in the compensation package as a free benefit at the urging of medical and public health professionals who concluded (with data) that by removing costs as a barrier, more women and families would be able to make different contraceptive and family planning decisions that align with their medical needs and life situation, not financial constraints, the benefits of which are long-reaching and should be something we can all intuitively appreciate.

Therefore, Hobby Lobby’s request for religious accommodation is to remove these four drugs from the universal compensation package. These employees, then, are being denied a portion of their compensation and a universal entitlement because of the particular religious beliefs of their employer. This is a fairly simple scenario to analogize.

Using other compensation packages as universal entitlements:

Imagine your boss is Amish and doesn’t want to pay extra for overtime or holidays. Fair?

Imagine the boss of a construction company belongs to a religion that believes wind spirits will protect everyone so he doesn’t purchase hardhats or safety cables. However, he does allow the employees to make those purchases themselves if they like. Those costs run equal to one month’s salary. Fair? Good? Moral? Reasonable?

Then there are the analogies within this particular compensation package about medical procedures and medicines that are considered immoral to many other religions.

The problem is not that the women are being denied access to those four drugs, it is the question of why an employer’s religion is a significant enough reason to deny particular employees a universal benefit? It, effectively, imposes a pay cut or cost on the employee according to their employer’s religion, which is particularly significant if that cost endangers their employee’s life and well-being, which contraception absolutely does.

“The owners of Hobby Lobby should not have to pay for something they find morally objectionable.”

This is by far the most legitimate reasoning. I am sympathetic to this kind of dilemma. I don’t think many people would straight-up object to this rationalization as irrelevant to moral concerns, but this concern is not absolute over all other moral concerns. And that is the key issue, here!

For example, I find lethal military intervention morally objectionable, but I am still required to pay taxes which support them. The public welfare, humanitarian intervention, and government efficiency are often moral concerns which override my individual moral and religious objections to the use of lethal force. And I have to accept that. Religious liberty buys me no accommodation.

Or think of the common examples of a business owner who doesn’t agree with life-saving organ transplants. Or blood transfusions. Or psychiatric medications. Or vaccinations. These are the kinds of life-changing procedures or medicines that were deemed worthy of being indiscriminately offered to all for a reason. The moral concerns were significant!! Reverting back to making them subject to the self-reported moral objections of employers goes against the moral calculus that was deemed constitutional just two years earlier.

In many ways, this goes back to the previous answer in that they are not “paying for the contraceptives” but are “offering a compensation package” which includes free access to those things. That seems like a semantic difference but it is at least as important as the distinction between handing an employee money which they use to buy an IUD vs. offering them a healthcare package which includes the free use of an IUD.

Hobby Lobby is saying they bear moral complicity only when it serves them legally. This is inconsistent and myopic. It fails the rigorous sort of ethical analysis required if those in power wish to deny their workers a benefit universally granted to every other worker in the US. That should be a high threshold to meet and this reasoning has consistently been deemed subordinate to the moral concerns of the general health and welfare of all, equality in the workplace, and rule of law.

“Hobby Lobby provides coverage for 16 of the 20 contraceptives.”

This is the strangest rationalization I have heard so far. It rings to the tune of “You should be happy with the freedom we gave you!”

This analogy is imperfect but here goes: Imagine if every store in the Southeastern United States decided they will not sell handguns to women. Their defense: “We would be happy to sell women any other gun, just not the handguns.” The response would probably be confusion. And some kind of 2^nd Amendment firestorm.

This is a horrible rationalization. Please stop using it. If a woman and her doctor decide the best treatment for her is one of the four contraceptives Hobby Lobby isn’t covering, the other 16 are hardly a consolation.

“A businessman should be able to run his business as he pleases.”

This is perhaps one of the more dangerous rationalizations I hear because it is both true and very untrue. Yes, businessmen are given a lot of leeway on how they run their companies. This is why people move jobs and love or hate their bosses. But we have universal regulations (as well as regulations per sector) that all employers are obligated to abide by which are imposed by the government as our collective agent. And these regulations are largely in place for the safety and welfare of the public. They are also widely lauded and protected.

For instance, a businessman can’t fire a woman for being pregnant. A businessman can’t hire children. A businessman must pay workers a minimum wage and additional compensation for working on holidays and over 40 hours per week. A businessman must provide break periods and food intervals. A businessman must abide by basic safety regulations. A businessman must pay both personal taxes on his income and taxes on the income of his business.

A for-profit businessman has the legal protection from liability of incorporation. This is what sets businesses apart from their owners as individuals as well as from non-profits and churches. Blurring this line in some naive attempt to “let a businessman run his business” is a dangerous step away from those distinctions and their incumbent protections.

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

The Supreme Court rules on existing law and we live in a democracy. Our voice is not lost on this issue. RFRA was a law passed because the public was outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith.

It is our responsibility as men and women of conscience to consider the implications of a corporation having rights of faith requiring accommodation from law and petition our government to remedy the grave error that has been done through this ruling.

Gay vs. Greed - Taking the Bible Seriously

Here is a quote from a conservative Christian radio host regarding the hot-button issue of LGBT inclusion:

“Without a doubt, this issue will become a great dividing line in the Church, and I for one welcome it, since it points to a much deeper divide in our approach to God, His Word, and the people He wants to redeem. Ultimately, it will separate those who put God first and ask, "How can I fulfill His desires?" from those who put themselves first and ask, "How can He fulfill my desires?" (Although some will take extreme offense to this statement, if you analyze the major "gay Christian" arguments, they often boil down to this perspective.)”

I have highlighted several different areas we will return to.

But first a story.

The setting: A balcony at night. A dear friend and I are smoking Black and Milds. I had just returned from the Peace Corps and he was visiting from Central America, where he lives and does humanitarian work. He is taller than I am (so you can accurately picture the scene). We are talking about being back in the States. He is leaving the next day to go back home. Both him and I came from pretty conservative Christian backgrounds. We both have a deep and abiding concern for the poor. And we both want very badly to live a life that shows that concern and makes a real impact on that front; we want to fight the losing battle.

He looks at me and says, “Tonight, at the bar, I spent the same amount of money on drinks that could feed a family for a week back home.” I don't remember hearing any particular emotion in his delivery. He said it just like a fact. It was a fact.

Another fact: There are 31,102 verses in the Bible. And only six or seven mention homosexuality. Well… actually… not really. “Homosexuality” is an English word and the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Also when we say or read “homosexuality,” the idea of what that means to us is much different than what same-sex relations looked like in the first century or before.

I don't want to get too esoteric but there is a hidden charge (although increasingly explicit as per the quote above) that those of us who are for LGBT inclusion don’t take the Bible seriously. This is false. This is very false. I believe in LGBT inclusion precisely BECAUSE of the Bible, not despite it. I have read hundreds of pages of scholastic work on the issue from all different sides and have studied the issue. My opinion on this is well-informed and not taken lightly. Those who simply read the word “homosexuality” and think that means the same thing back when it was written as it does now are the ones not taking the Bible seriously. So, let’s talk about what the Bible says about “homosexuality.” (Prepare yourself; it’s about to get a little technical.)

Scripture on Gay

Here are two verses in the New Testament that are quoted ad nauseum in order to “prove” that being gay (or engaging in the gay lifestyle) is a sin.

------

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. – 1 Corinthians 6:9 (I included verse 10 although it is often omitted.)

This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. – 1 Timothy 1:9-11 

------

I have highlighted two English words, one in orange and one in blue. The New Testament transcripts were written in Greek, therefore, must be translated into English. In translating the words, it is helpful for us as laypeople (neither linguistics nor Biblical scholars) to see both how this word was translated throughout history as well as how it was used in other extant sources from that time. So let’s do that.

The original Greek word that we see translated (NRSV) as “male prostitutes” is malakos. It is translated in other versions of the Bible as: effeminate, sexually immoral, homosexuals, homosexual offenders, homosexual perversions, those who practice homosexuality, men who lie with males, and corrupt.

This word is actually used three times in the New Testament and many other places outside of the Bible. It means “soft” – as it is used the other two times in the New Testament to refer to clothing. In other non-biblical locations it is used to describe delicate food or the lightness of a breeze. In moral contexts, it was often understood as “soft,” such as “laziness, degeneracy, decadence, lack of courage, or, to sum up all these vices in one ancient category, the feminine.” (source : Martin)

This is where the history of the translation of that word gets a bit hairy. For centuries (from at least the 15^th century, perhaps before, until the 1960s), this word malakos was translated as “effeminate.” Then, without reason or explicit logic, the English translation took a turn to start describing the word as “homosexual” or some variant of other sexual immorality.

This concept, “effeminate,” is often boiled down to the act of being penetrated, which is a gross over-simplification. As I said, the word was used quite often in historical literature and it is much more indicative of the horrifying misogyny of the time period. Femininity was something to be avoided in a general sense, not just sexually. While women were “penetrable,” the word was more often used to describe someone as lazy, worthless, weak, or as a coward. In fact, it was used to describe men who loved women TOO much (what we might describe today as “whipped”), even when compared to those who had homosexual relations (because to be “whipped” by another man is less emasculating than to that of a woman).

The second word I have highlighted – translated (NRSV) as “sodomites” – is arsenokoitos. Other translations have it: sexual perverts, boy prostitutes, catamites, male prostitutes, homosexual prostitutes, lechers against kind, use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it.

This word is far more complex and difficult than the last word. Malakos was used quite often and was even used elsewhere in the Bible. However, these two instances, in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy, are some of the only remaining documents that use arsenokoitos from that time period, making its translation even that much more imprecise. However there are a few documents that use this term, albeit a bit later, that help us surmise some kind of context in which this word was used within an ancient context.

Judging from the context of these later documents, arsenokoitos did have some kind of meaning in the Greco-Roman world that is more specific than simply “homosexual penetration.” It is found in several “vice lists” (a common rhetorical tool of the time) but it is in the section of economic and exploitive vices/sins, not the overtly sexual lists. Philological and biblical scholars will admit that no one can know exactly what the word meant, but based on the contexts in which it is found, it refers to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (perhaps including homosexual sex but not limited to that). This could include: “rape or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, pimping, or something of the sort.” As Biblical scholar Dale Martin of Yale University wonders: “Why some scholars are certain [arsenokoitos] refers to simple male-male sex in the face of evidence to the contrary” shows that “ideology has been more important than philology.” (source : Martin)

There is also a broader problem that EVEN IF we could absolutely determine that translating these words to mean “homosexuality” is justified, the meaning of that word in the 1^st century or before is undeniably different than the meaning of that word today. The Oxford Classical Dictionary tries to unravel this problem in the opening of its section on homosexuality:

“No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term ‘homosexuality,’ and ancient Mediterranean society did not in practice treat homosexuality as a socially operating category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. … The application of ‘homosexuality’ (and ‘heterosexuality’) in a substantive or normative sense to sexual expression in classical antiquity is not advised.”

Further complicating our translation problems, both of the word itself and the concept as a whole, are the moral differences between homosexual activity in each historical context. Homosexuality in our modern period has taken a comparable form to heterosexuality – love, intimacy, marriage, and raising a family. While in the past, homosexuality might have prominently included behavior like pederasty, cults, temple prostitution, orgies, rape, etc. While there is evidence of committed homosexual love in the ancient period, it most certainly was not the norm. In the end, the significant differences to our understanding of personal identity, sexual expression, and the norms of intimate relationships are so dramatic that to make complete analogical comparisons without disclaimer would be disingenuous and populism of the worst kind.

Scripture on Greed

In keeping with the theme from my last blog, I believe modern Christians have forgotten the prominence “greed” plays in the Bible and have relaxed our moral consciences from the sacrificial lifestyle Jesus calls us to.

Performing some kind of word study on “greed” in the Bible is an entirely different animal. For one, the instances that the word “greed” comes up are much too frequent to go through. Secondly, greed in the Bible is encased in a much larger theme than simply a sinful action or motive. The Bible is very explicit throughout its entire canon that the responsibilities and duties we have towards ensuring a dignified existence for our neighbors, especially the poorest, is paramount. The Bible includes examples, and even edicts, of the world’s most radical social policy in scheduled debt forgiveness, manumission of debt-slaves, open food policy, and “common purse” communities.

Nevertheless, I do want to touch on a few of the important points that our spiritual ancestors made through the Bible regarding greed and our duties to the poor.

The Greek word used most often in the Christian canon for “greed” is pleonexia, which literally can be broken down to mean “have more.” This doesn’t necessarily imply its exact meaning but it is clear (through usage) that the meaning did connote some kind of covetousness – therefore some kind of wrongful desire.

The problem that most people get hung up on is how desire is determined as wrongful? What constitutes greed or covetousness? Is it simply wanting more than you have? Wanting more than you need? Wanting an extravagant amount more than needed? Coveting what others have? Coveting more in order to be like others? Does it incorporate neglect of the needs of others? Where does need end and greed begin? These are difficult questions and there is plenty of room for every individual to struggle deep within their own conscience.

Greed is not just about one’s possessions – as if there is some threshold that one crosses. “Once I own X cars, I become greedy.” Or “My watch only cost $X, so I am not greedy.” Or “I only make $X per year, which is modest. I make enough to be comfortable and that is fine. God has blessed me.”

None of us exist outside of a context. As much as we don’t like the sound of it, the morality of our actions is often times (nearly always I would suggest) relative to the circumstances around us and the intent carried in those actions. This is how a poor widow can be praised for tithing a penny while a rich preacher can be castigated despite giving largely.

We have white-washed the very difficult teachings Jesus gives regarding possessions, wealth, and riches. “But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.” (Luke 6:24). “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me. … Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matt. 19:20-24). “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth… For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. … No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matt. 6:19, 21, 24). Yet, even those words seem light compared to the teachings on the importance (even the ETERNAL importance) of helping the poor.

In Matthew 25, Jesus paints a picture of the eternal judgment of all people. The fundamental criteria that is used to determine eternal punishment or eternal reward is entirely based on their treatment of the poor and marginalized. Jesus even goes so far as to say that our treatment of those people equates our treatment of God!

In Luke 12, Jesus describes a rich young fool whose crops have a banner year. The man says to himself, “I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.” Seems reasonable. God responds by calling him a fool and taking his life from him that night! Jesus warns, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.”

Jesus isn't alone. His apostles carried the tradition of strong teaching on our duties to the poor. In James 2, the author explains the importance of love and mercy in being a disciple of Christ and concludes: “What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” The author asks rhetorically if faith is sufficient for salvation? That hope is dead if we lack the compassion and will to help those in need.

In 1 John, the author makes a similarly bold statement when discussing the importance of love. “We know love by this, that [Jesus] laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?” Jesus’ sacrifice is how we know we are supposed to make sure people don't die of starvation, exposure, or curable diseases. It would seem that if we refuse this, the love of God does not exist in us.

Strong words. Really strong. Especially considering the extremely rich state of Christians in the world and the vast amount of poverty-related death and suffering that still exists. We have over-spiritualized the good news of the Kingdom of God. We have forgotten the answer to the question, “Can faith save you?” Or the reason why the King in Jesus’ parable tells the goats “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”

For centuries, maybe even millennia, Christians have practiced very clever hermeneutic dancing to avoid conviction on these very difficult teachings. And to be fair, some of that might have merit – some of these teachings need thoughtful exegesis especially in our globalized modern context (much like homosexuality). My point in all this is not to imply that everyone must mimic Mother Teresa in order to be a Christian (although I think if even a few of us had the strength to do so, the world would be better for it).

My point is to show that the problem of greed and neglecting the poor is very important to the writers of the Bible. They spend a substantial portion of text on the subject and they use very demanding and extreme language to convey its significance – much of which we brush away. And to top it all off, some of the more conservative of my faith have redirected our attention from the very ubiquitous and life-endangering problems of greed and poverty to a very dubious, contextual, and briefly touched on subject that barely affects anyone’s life: homosexuality.

This kind of misdirection is not only disingenuous to the Bible and the forbearers of the faith, it has potentially redirected positive energy and work that would have helped ease human suffering and prevent premature death into exclusivity and negativity that maligns individuals as unholy and eternally damned.

Beyond the Scripture

That quote from above, here it is again with my highlights: “Without a doubt, this issue will become a great dividing line in the Church, and I for one welcome it, since it points to a much deeper divide in our approach to God, His Word, and the people He wants to redeem. Ultimately, it will separate those who put God first and ask, "How can I fulfill His desires?" from those who put themselves first and ask, "How can He fulfill my desires?" (Although some will take extreme offense to this statement, if you analyze the major "gay Christian" arguments, they often boil down to this perspective.)”

I agree that there is a pretty stark divide amongst modern Christians. And I agree it does involve our approach to God, the Bible, and “the people he wants to redeem.” But I don't think it has anything to do with putting God first or “my desires” vs. “his desires.” It mostly has to do with self-awareness, thoughtful insight into the human condition, and an inclusive vs. exclusive viewpoint.

Return to the story about my friend above. He and I are both committed to the cause of affirming the basic humanity of the poor and alleviating their suffering. He and I have read the teachings of Jesus and his apostles concerning greed and wealth and have made life-altering decisions because of them. Yet we still find ourselves smoking on the porch after a night of drinking with friends, realizing how much money we spent. We get swallowed by the world around us. What is a luxury to most of the world is difficult for us to imagine living without. Despite being committed, we still fail to live up to the expectations set before us. We miss the mark. We are sinners, even at our best.

I worry that those who focus on homosexuality instead of the weightier issues of greed and poverty do so because they lack this fundamental insight. To be forced to come face-to-face with our own greed – our own sin – is much more difficult than pointing out that of other people. Telling other people to repent of their homosexuality is much easier than sacrificing our material wealth, comfort, and security.

Ultimately, I think God wants to redeem everyone. I think some people resist that redemption, Christians included (maybe more than others). Our desires are for our own comfort and ease. We tell our soul, “relax, eat, drink, be merry.” Our desires are for security, both spiritual and material. Our desires are to feel morally superior to those different than us, and to feel morally justified when confronted by something that makes us feel icky. We don't want to include those who are different than us. We don't want to be uncomfortable.

But Jesus’ desires seem different. He tells us to invite the beggar to dinner; to give the place of honor to the poor; to be a servant to all; to give mercy and love as freely as he did and does.

Because God wants to redeem everyone, that includes me, chief among sinners.

Until we can all say that phrase with equal conviction and humility, we will always be stalled from seeing the vision of the Kingdom that Jesus painted. We need to get past the six historically complicated verses about “homosexuality” and see that they are inconsequential compared to the threat poverty and human suffering pose to the human soul. We need to come to terms with the idea that EVEN IF modern homosexuality is sinful, it is no more sinful than our own greed and neglect of the poor. We need to get over our “ick factor” and really reflect on whether or not our discrimination and rejection of those different than us comes anywhere close to the sacrifices Jesus calls us to.

Christian ethics is not about perfect history or philology. Christian ethics is about determining the meaning of love. It is about continuing the ministry of Jesus and, by the grace of God alone, being a part of the Kingdom of God.