The truth of our hearts [Religion]

The truth of our hearts

by Keith Thomas

I sincerely don't believe that God is going to be checking that paperwork is in order when it comes to salvation. God will know the truth of our hearts.

Two events have happened recently concerning homosexuality and Christianity that challenge our thinking. The circumstances couldn't be more wildly divergent, yet they both go to the core of our faith. One is popular television personality Phil Robertson and the other a man who is virtually unknown by comparison. His name is Frank Schaefer, a United Methodist Church (UMC) pastor, make that defrocked pastor.

Mr. Robertson made some disparaging, or insensitive if you prefer, remarks in GQ magazine about gay people. (The comments he also made concerning race are incidental to the controversy.) Mr. Schaefer officiated at his gay son's wedding.

Initially Mr. Robertson was indefinitely suspended by A&E network. Even then, the network announced that they would continue airing his show. He has since been reinstated. The tempest in that teapot is over. Great publicity and more money in the bank for the Robertsons and A&E.

Mr. Schaefer, on the other hand, lost his job.

Both of these instances have me thinking yet again about what is the main purpose of the Christian faith? What comes first? Preaching to believers? The Bible? Doctrine? Theory? The Church? Rules? Punishment? Mercy? Compassion? Love? Salvation? Jesus?

It seems to me that in order to bring people to salvation the church needs to reach out to unbelievers, not drive them away from Christianity. The UMC has the slogan "Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors." Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty show uses duck calls.  He used a wide variety them in the 2010 video I watched when he addressed a church gathering.

First let’s talk about Mr. Robertson. After all, he's national and has profited handsomely from his faith. The comments he made in GQ weren't the first time he addressed the issue of homosexuality so by way of context I'm going to provide some of his earlier comments. (By the way, here's what the family said at their website, "Phil would never incite or encourage hate.")

Really? Here are some comments Phil made in 2010 (The video is available on You Tube.): 

“They will dishonor their bodies with one another, degrade each other,” continues Robertson. “Is that going on in the United States of America? Look around. ... Boy, is there some immorality going on around here.”

“Women with women. Men with men,” he said at one point. “They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions."

“They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred."

"They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

I'm just not feeling or witnessing the concept of Christian love and compassion from Phil Robertson with comments like the above. But in light of his more recent comments along the same lines made in the GQ article I believe that I am seeing the truth of his heart.

And oh yes, in 2009 Robertson suggested that men marry 15 or 16 year old girls.

The fan base for the Duck Dynasty faux reality show responded immediately to Robertson's suspension as a violation of his free of speech rights because he had referenced some scripture.

First of all (I accept that it's a little late in this commentary to say "first of all" but I like it.) Robertson exercised his right to speak freely and did so. He was NOT sanctioned for citing scripture. Nor was he fired. What's more, the family has referenced scripture and their faith on a regular basis. He was suspended for his GQ comments by his private sector employer, not the government (from whom constitutional freedom of speech protects us). And finally, A & E never really did anything to Mr. Robertson other than give a ton of publicity to his life view.

We unfortunately will see that millions of Christians not only agree with him but will escalate the dialogue even further. They have hung their hats with Robertson and will defend him until the bitter end.

When it comes to dialogue about homosexuality, religious extremists find the most intolerant passages that there are in the Bible to cite as defense of their open ridicule. They wear these passages as badges of their disdain for the unworthy, the doomed.

Is it justified? What is the second greatest commandment? Insult and ridicule thy neighbor?

This kind of rhetoric doesn't just drive people away from the church. That's a  much smaller problem. The larger problem is that it drives people away from finding Jesus. Is that good? To drive people away from the possibility of salvation?

I think the Bible has to be a place that we turn to for answers since it will be used as further justification as being the foundation for his arguments. Is it a useful resource in this regard?

The next paragraph is going to be repetitive so I'll say here that I'm saying that the Bible we have is NOT the literal infallible word of God. (Get out the holy water, padre, there are demons to exorcise!) The paragraph below provides my justification for that statement. If "you" have a Bible that is the infallible word of God--lucky you. (BTW millions of Christians disagree with both you and me.)

I have several Bibles. My first Bible is the one that my Grandmother Thomas gave me. It's a King James Version (KJV) as is the second one I was given when I went into the service. The Gideons provided that little pocket Bible. My Aunt Lucille sent me a "Living Bible", a Bible in the language of the times as in "I'm telling it like it is." I also picked a direct word for word translation of the King James into modern English from archaic English. Then I have my New American Standard (NASB) study Bible. I also have an English Standard Version (ESV). My phone has the New International Version (NIV). There are other versions as well. I think there are around fifty different versions used by the over 20,000 (an extremely conservative number) different sects of Christianity. There may be more. All of them are different and unique in how they represent the word of God. The Bible can only be considered infallible in its original languages since there are so many different translations and I'm not referring to just the English translations. So in that sense the Bibles that we have can't really be considered the literal infallible word of God. Theologians argue over the various translations, words and what was said in the context of the times in often opposing views, including the question of whether salvation is permanent or has to be constantly renewed. The translation of ONE word can make all the difference. Is salvation as ephemeral as a wisp that hangs on the translation of one word?

Anybody can do good and lead an exemplary life. They don't have to be Christian. They can be of any religion or none. So it seems to me that the main purpose of the Bible can't be that we should just do good and unto others.

Rather than go through all the Bible is and isn't I think we can just say that the main purpose of the Bible is that we're supposed to bring people to the belief that there is a continuance after death, they can be saved and have a desirable afterlife.

Why the inflexibility against homosexuality? Why the vitriol directed their way?

The churches in this country were certainly flexible with defining marriage early in our nation’s history as being monogamous in spite of all the Biblical examples of polygamy. Mormons certainly had Biblical support for being polygamous.

WARNING! INAPPROPRIATE JOKE. When I was growing up in the Southern Baptist church I heard jokes about Catholics that I believed were inappropriate then just as they are now. But I'm going to share one to illustrate a point.

The joke goes that there was this guy that died and went to heaven. (Did you ever notice that it's usually a guy that dies and goes to heaven in jokes?) St. Peter is showing the newbie around when a cloud with a wall around it catches the guys attention. "Who's that?" he asks St. Peter, who replies, "Oh, that's the Catholics; they don't think anybody's up here but them."

This joke reminds me of a couple of relatives that called me up years ago because they were convinced that the rapture was coming and that I wasn't going. I was pretty much convinced that they were wrong all the way around.

They're divorced now.

This brings up another point. My wife and I, both previously divorced, were married in the church without disapproval. (Obviously we're not Catholic.) The Bible is clearly against divorce. So, by allowing us to be married in the church, isn't the church, using one of the same arguments against gay marriage, therefore condoning our lifestyle? (Even the Catholics have numerous loopholes to their prohibition to marriages outside the faith and between divorced people.)

Our marriage is only considered legal in this country because the state provided and approved the “lifestyle”. The church requires a marriage permit but will conduct the ceremony if one isn't available. However, the marriage would still not be recognized by the church or the sate until the proper paperwork was done. It needs to be noted that even on this point the state is willing in some cases to be flexible and will recognize "common law" marriage.

I should also point out that my wife and I have not been ostracized from the church we attend now because we were previously married in a Presbyterian church, and our 25 year vow renewal was held and "officiated" at the church we currently attend. No one held our previous status against us. No rocks were thrown. Good thing too. I don't run very fast any more. If churches came out against divorcés they would empty out their congregations.

Religious people could certainly find plenty of passages in the Bible about divorce to use against us on a regular basis.

Why not rail against women for not being submissive?

"A woman should learn quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man."

1 Timothy 2:11-12

Most churches (though not all) just lay Timothy aside just as other sections of the Bible are laid aside like several from Leviticus.

The constant disparagement of homosexuals drives not only them away from the church and Christianity but many of their friends and family as well. They just might be in need of the word and love of our Savior. It sends the message that there are certain kinds of people that are not welcome and all too often unbelievers in general feel that they are in this category. This is just the opposite of the way it should be. So why do it?

Then just to add insult to injury churches oppose gay people having rights in the secular world as well so that the government can punish them in ways unavailable to the church.

Decades ago I left the church because of all the hypocrisy, hate and intolerance expressed by so many. After my four year hitch in the Army I tried again attending a home town church. I had let my hair grow out and qualified as a "long-haired hippie". The pastor just happened to give a service that morning vilifying hippies and their (my) immorality in general. I was a tee-totaler vegetarian at the time and did not do drugs. As I left, not to return to a church for several decades, I was thinking that the time would come when long-hairs would be welcomed and desperately needed to support and continue the church. I pass by that church now on Sunday morning and there will only be a half dozen cars in their parking lot. How many souls might they have saved if they had reached out instead?

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. It's easier to bully homosexuals because they're a minority. Gay people realize that "love the sinner hate the sin" is bullshit. It's Christian code for “your kind isn't welcome here” any more than hippies were back in my time.

Did you forget about Mr. Frank Schaefer? I believe it's a shame that his plight didn't warrant more attention. Then the nation could have dug around in his life to see more of the truth of his heart. All we have right now is that he lost his job because he performed a marriage ceremony for his gay son. Why couldn't his son just have done the right thing and married a 15 or 16 year old?

Since I quoted Phil Robertson earlier, it's only fair that I reference some of Mr. Schaefer’s comments:

"I can no longer be a silent supporter. I will always be an advocate and I will tell the church that these laws are discriminatory. And that we treat our LGBT brothers and sisters as second-class Christians, and that the hate, the hate speech of the church has to stop."

Then Pastor Schaefer really goes off the reservation.

"We're doing this not for ourselves, we're doing this out of love for all people, God's beloved people. And in this day and age, we're doing it for our gay and lesbian, bisexual and transgendered brothers and sisters, children, parents, uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews, cousins and friends. They belong to us and we belong to them. And we must stand with them and for them, in Jesus' name. Amen."

It occurs to me that we don't have praise music that is hateful or degrading to any specific group of people. I have never heard praise music in a church condemning, say, divorcés. Praise music is invitational. It's "Come, ALL ye faithful." Not ALL except for unwed mothers, addicted, homeless, homosexuals, you know--different people.

There's an easy way for churches to handle this and not just Methodist churches. First ask congregations:

•  Are white people welcome? 
•  Are stinky people welcome? 
•  Are unwed mothers welcome? 
•  Are black people welcome? 
•  Are ugly people welcome? 
•  Are people of color welcome? 
•  Are journalists welcome? 
•  Are people of a certain political party welcome? 
•  Are fat people welcome? 
•  Are the infirm welcome? 
•  Are people of color welcome? 
•  Are divorcees welcome? 
•  Are women welcome? 
•  Are sinners welcome? 
•  Are uncovered women welcome? 
•  Are unbelievers welcome? 
•  Are people that curse welcome? 
•  Are illegal immigrants welcome?
• Are pedophiles welcome?
• Are the sick welcome? 
• Are adulterers welcome? 
• Are prostitutes welcome? 
• Are addicts welcome? 
• Are the poor welcome? 
• Are the rich welcome? 
• Are the out of work welcome? 
• Are the homeless welcome?
• Are criminals welcome?
• Are other faiths welcome?A
• Are those without hope welcome?

Really, give a lot of thought to the list and make the list as comprehensive as possible so that congregations don't have to go through this again. Also keep in mind that some people may fit into several different categories. In other words poor people may be welcome unless they happen to be stinky as well. Then let people decide if there are some that are welcome but with certain restrictions, like women not being able to hold leadership positions.

Then, after congregations decide who is acceptable, they can proudly post a list at the entrance of their place of worship of those that aren't welcome and those that are welcome but with certain restrictions. Get it right out there in the open so that people can know before they ever darken the door, listen to a sermon, crack a book or find salvation. This will save them from being surprised later on.

So, in the end, what defines us I believe is the love that resides in the truth of our hearts.  In the indefinable, unexplainable language that is love. The kind of love that Jesus talked about. The love that brings hope and salvation. The kind of love that we're commanded to give in Matthew 22: 37-40 (KJV). I think that this scripture makes for the perfect closing.

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.