The Church of Just Us [Religion]

 

(11 minute read)

NOTE:  This will be familiar to some. I wrote this piece previously with references to the Duck Dynasty and Rev. Frank Schaeffer controversies. It was titled "The truth of our hearts". I have deleted those references in order to make it more generically applicable to the ongoing struggle of the Church v. Homosexuals.

What is the main purpose of the Christian faith? What comes first? Preaching to believers? The Bible? Doctrine? Theory? The Church? Rules? Punishment? Mercy? Wounding people? Compassion? Love? Salvation? Jesus? Helping others? Helping the less fortunate?

It seems to me that in order to bring people to salvation the church needs to reach out to unbelievers and believers as well, not drive them away from Christianity.

When it comes to dialogue about homosexuality, religious opponents 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. This open ridicule is part of the problem.

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

Yes, people are entitled to their beliefs and behavior, Christian and non-Christian alike. But the rhetoric of intolerance and contempt doesn't just drive people away from “The Church”. That's a relatively small 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 and a richer, more fulfilling life? Too often people stop at salvation as being the defining moment of their Christianity and don't apply the faith to how they live their lives, conduct themselves and interact with others.  Christianity by its very nature requires socializing with others and ministering to needs.

I think the Bible has to be a place that we turn to for guidance since it will be used as further justification as the foundation for arguments either way. Is it a useful resource in this regard? Do we single out a particular sin du jour and make that sin a foundational cornerstone of the faith or do we use love as that cornerstone, the foundation of our faith?

I'll say right here that the Bible 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 literal word of God--lucky you. BTW millions of Christians disagree with both you and me.)

We need to keep in mind that the New Testament did not exist in Jesus’ time and the whole Bible is an assembly of written words put together over the centuries.

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 up 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). Shelley also bought me “The Message”. There are other versions as well. I think there are around fifty different versions used by the over 20,000 different sects of Christianity. There may be more. All of them are different and unique in how they represent the word of God. So in that sense the Bibles that we have can't really be considered the literal infallible word of God. I'm not a literalist. I'm not really a contextualist either but I do turn to the Bible for inspiration. Theologians argue over the various translations, words and what was said in the context of the times in often opposing views, including even the question of whether salvation, a basic tenant of the Christian faith, 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? Seriously, we can't even agree on salvation.

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 my point.

The joke goes that there was this guy that died and went to heaven. St. Peter is showing the newbie around when a cloud with a wall around it catches the guy’s attention. "What's that?" he asks St. Peter, who replies, "Oh, that's the Catholics; they don't think anybody's up here but them."

Anybody can do good and lead an exemplary life. They don't have to be Christian to do that. 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 unto others.

Rather than go through what all the Bible is and isn't I think we can just say that the main purpose of the Bible is to give us a platform from which we're supposed to bring people to the belief that there is a continuance after death, that they can be saved and have a desirable afterlife through Jesus Christ. What's more, we should practice and live our faith by helping others in order to have a fulfilling purposeful Christian life.

So back to my question: Why the inflexibility against homosexuality? Why all the vitriol directed their way? It's one thing to deny rights in the religious sector and quite another to deny a person rights in the secular world. What non-believers see and are subjected to is Christians imposing their religious views in the secular world.

My wife and I, both previously divorced, were married in the Presbyterian Church without disapproval. (Obviously we're not Catholic.) The Bible is clearly against divorce and adultery. Violently so in some instances. So, by allowing us to be married in the church, isn't the church, using one of the same arguments used against gay marriage, therefore condoning our “lifestyle”? But even the Catholic Faith has numerous loopholes to their prohibition to marriages outside the faith and between divorced people.

Our marriage is considered legal in this country because the state provided certification and approved the “union”. A marriage performed by the church would not be recognized by the state until the proper government paperwork is done. (Even on this point the state is willing in some cases to be flexible and will recognize "common law" marriage for certain purposes.) Lastly, a marriage will be recognized as legal if there's no religious involvement at all.

Religious people could certainly find plenty of passages in the Bible about divorce to use against us. But my wife and I have not been ostracized from the church we attend now because we were previously married and then divorced, and our 25 year vow renewal was held at the church we currently attend. No one held our previous status of being divorced against us. No rocks were thrown. (Good thing too. I don't run very fast any more.) If churches came out against divorced people they would empty out their congregations pretty quickly.

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) lay Timothy aside just as other sections of the Bible are laid aside like several from Leviticus (such as prohibitions against certain foods and fabrics and what-have-you).

The constant disparagement of homosexuals not only drives them away from the church and Christianity but many times from their friends and family as well. It sends the message certain kinds of people 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? They just might be in need of the word and love of our Savior.

Then to add insult to injury, some 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-totaling 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 of driving people away?

Look around your church at the congregation. Who is missing?

Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. It's easy 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 or divorcés in another or black people in another.

It occurs to me that hymns and praise music are not 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 and/or an inspirational call to worship. It's "Come, ALL ye faithful." Not ALL except for unwed mothers, the addicted, homeless, homosexuals, you know--different people.

There's an easy way for churches to handle this. 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 divorcés welcome?
• Are women welcome?
• Are sinners welcome?
• Are women with their heads uncovered 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?
• Are those without hope welcome?

Really; give a lot of thought to the list and make yours as comprehensive as possible so that you 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 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.

            Now there’s a passage that is surely the same regardless of the translation.

UPDATE, 2/27/19

This essay was written in 2014. The UMC church we were attending had a schism over the issue of homosexuality in 2015. That UMC church no longer exists.

Presumption of guilt [Culture/Racism]

Presumption of guilt

by Keith Thomas

Let’s talk about what is taking place in Ferguson and other parts of the country. Let’s open up that dialog that activists tell us we need. My language isn't going to be nearly as erudite others who have written about what is taking place. I'm a retired factory worker.

There are a lot of ways to approach solving problems. One way is to start with a question and look for the answer or answers. Another way is to start with the answer and then look for the right question.

For many in regards to the young man, Michael Brown, who was killed in Ferguson, the answer was that Police Officer Darren Wilson murdered him. That Officer Wilson is guilty but not charged. To disagree is to be either racist or not recognize that the system is racist.

In life we take the information that we're given and decide what we will believe. We do that based upon our life experience and that includes what we have learned both in and out of the educational system.

I believe that the preponderance of evidence supports Officer Wilson's version of what transpired and that justice was served. Is there conflicting evidence? Obviously there is. That isn't unusual. We can either cherry-pick the bits and pieces that support our contention or look at the totality of what is presented.

I also believe that it is sad that a young man had to die as a consequence of his actions. Others may not be so inclined. In other words; they may say he got what he had coming to him. Had he simply gotten out of the street and on the sidewalk he would still be alive. He is neither the perfect victim nor perpetrator.

But you see, Michael Brown knew that he had just committed petty theft and roughed up a store clerk. Did he do that because he was frustrated with systemic racism? He already knew that the evening was going to end badly for him (that’s called “consciousness of guilt”). It had nothing to do with racism.

In the riots that followed do all the arsonists, looters, vandals, etc. also get free passes because they only committed these acts because they were frustrated with and oppressed by the system? Has the verdict already been rendered in their regard by the Michael Brown supporters? 

Voir Dire 

If I was going to serve on a jury I would go through a process of voir dire to see if there was any reason that I should not be seated as a juror. While I'm not a juror or witness I think that it is important to give a snapshot of my life story. I'm doing this because we approach society from the lives we've lived and the experiences we've had. After all I could be just another honky racist or a part of systemic racism. Some may maintain I'm too ignorant to determine that racism.

My folks, based upon their experience, operated with a "presumption of guilt" system in regards to their precious children being accused of committing some heinous act against society. They would grudgingly accept that it was possible we could actually be innocent.

My family started off poor. We moved to the big city and lived in what my mother called an "efficiency". It had 3 rooms. We all slept in the same bedroom. Things got better.

We moved up to a duplex in a mixed race neighborhood. My family interacted with people of color. It never occurred to me to think anything about it.

When I got older and started driving I had a lot of interactions with the police. Some good. Some bad.

I was out on the streets driving around late at night sometimes with friends, sometimes alone. I was pulled over a lot. Out of the car. Lean against the hood. Have you been drinking? Why are you out so late? I was pulled over by officers of color as well as white officers. I was pulled over in predominantly white neighborhoods. I was pulled over in predominantly black neighborhoods. I was pulled over out in the country.

I was pulled over out of a either a presumption of guilt (because of my age) or boredom.

I cannot imagine having the temerity/audacity/stupidity to punch a police officer in the face or to refuse an order whether I considered it lawful or not. Even then I tried to use a little common sense that my dad said I was majorly deficient in and obeyed the guy that had the gun. I did not approach being stopped by the police as the beginning of a negotiation.

I knew good cops; I knew bad cops.

I had riot training in the military. Lots of racism in the military then. I was a "n*gger lover" to the white racists and an "Uncle Tom n*gger lover" to the black racists. Even though I have to use that word to describe events I still apologize for its use because it's an ugly, disparaging word. I had black guys that wanted to kill me. I had white guys that wanted to kill me.

After getting out of the Army I was a hippie/freak/longhair for around a decade and got to interact with the police a lot more.

There was a trip through the south in the 70s that was an incredible eye-opening experience. There is a young black bus boy that I am indebted to and I never knew his name. At the very least he saved me from a possible beating and helped keep my family from harm. I pray that God was able to bless that boy in life.

Lots of union activity. More police, both corporate and governmental. Lots more confrontation both good and bad.

Let’s stop here and I'll just say I didn't raise my sons to expect justice. I raised them to expect a lot of law.

We have, thanks to modern technology, practically instantaneous news. A news crew can be at a scene within in minutes, interrogating witnesses, digging up histories, plowing through social media and beaming it all to a world that demands answers in TV time! The world wants answers by ten, film at eleven, resolution tomorrow, if not today.

Media vigorously pursues any information no matter how irrelevant and reports it even when there isn't any. The viewing audience can fill in the blanks with their own conjecture. Why did the individual do it? What was their state of mind? What was their history? Did their moms love them? What does Facebook tell us? They will take somebody's life completely apart.

The media has an insatiable appetite that must be fed 24 hours a day in a highly competitive and lucrative environment. The talking heads and journalists, two very different professions, want answers now. Their viewership/ratings depend on answers. The first one with the best answers wins. They don't even have to be the right answers.

Media has created unrealistic expectations on the part of the viewing public. Media fiction storytelling demonstrates on a regular basis that crimes and tests can be done within an hour. Does the forensic evidence support a guilty verdict? The real world is different and less exact.

In Ferguson witnesses were testifying before news crews that Officer Wilson was guilty. Out of the public eye there were witnesses supporting Officer Wilson's version of what transpired. They had enough sense to keep their observations to themselves until it was time to testify in secret without fear of retaliation.

People cry out for justice. The guilty verdict had already been rendered by the supporters of Michael Brown and anything less or immediate was unacceptable. What do we want?  “Justice! When do we want it? Now!” “No justice! No peace!” It was the perfect narrative for activists who want to keep their jobs. They poured into Ferguson from out of state. The protest becomes an end unto itself.

The problem is that we have a ponderous, unwieldy legal system that is supposed to operate with a presumption of innocence. The gathering of "information" that comes out at the first of an investigation can be cut and dried.  At times, though, the initial information comes from a chaotic situation and can be questionable, contradictory or confusing. Eye witness accounts are often in conflict with physical evidence or each other. What is known to be true today can be known to be wrong tomorrow or somewhere in between. 

People demand justice from a system that is about the "rule of law"; a system where "t"s must be crossed and "i"s must be dotted. Guilt or innocence is a matter of perspective and paperwork. There is bound to be disappointment. Justice may or may not be rendered. Justice isn't always included in the "rule of law" where pocketbooks can make all the difference and being affluent can make one a victim. Being poor does not provide an advantage in a system that can grind on for years.

Grand Juries are pointless and should be abolished. All the Grand Jury could have done is found that there was enough evidence for a trial to take place. Had a trial taken place Officer Wilson would have been found not guilty. I know at there are people pointing out errors of the Grand Jury that don't support Officer Wilson's version of events. That's okay. There's more than enough that does.

No justice. No peace. Only there would have been and there will be. People with jobs have to get on with their lives. Let’s face it, people without jobs have little incentive to keep chanting, marching and making signs. Their chances of getting arrested and thrown into a system that they claim is biased against them are increased. There isn't any future in it.  The protests will go away. There's no money in it for people that have jobs. And walking around chanting gets boring. There'll be a lot of talk from guys in suits about transparency, communication, additional training, etc. Whatever the current buzz words are and then people will get on with their lives.

I don't want to bury this in numbers so I'm just going to use these statistics that were cited in a Washington Post article:  "It is true that the rate of black homicide victims and offenders were disproportionately represented compared to the general population, the 2011 BJS report found. The black victimization rate (27.8 per 100,000) was six times higher than the white victimization rate (4.5 per 100,000). Black offending rate (34.4 per 100,000) was almost eight times higher than whites (4.5 per 100,000), according to the report." (  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/25/giulianis-claim-that-93-percent-of-blacks-are-killed-by-other-blacks/  )

The majority of police officers in the country are white. It shouldn't be surprising that white officers are accused of most bad acts. It should also follow that they're guilty of committing most good acts. They operate in a culture dealing with violence. In 2012 there were over 12 million arrests. (Traffic violations are not included.) 12 million. The smallest of small percentage of those are bad.

Finally, how many young kids are being lost to violence and drugs every day throughout America? E-V-E-R-Y day. Is a white cop shooting a black kid the main problem this country faces? Would a young man losing his life to a black cop instead of a white one have been less important to media, to family, to friends? Because it happens that white cops will shoot white teenagers as well as people of any color. The main difference in the majority of questionable incidents is that there isn't rioting in the streets and neighborhoods aren't burned down afterwards. White officers are guilty at times just as officers of other colors will be guilty. The racism groupie Al Sharpton is just one man. He can't be everywhere rendering verdicts.

Saying the problem in Ferguson is about race is like announcing the War on Terror or Drugs. Wars that never end. What's more if it's about race then it pits color against color. That's a lot less complicated. It's an easier answer to simply say it's racism. It's systemic racism. It just follows that everything else is about racism as well including the health care system. Throw in the educational system as well. Oops! I forgot about the entertainment/media industry. Have you ever seen as many people of color on the streets reporting the news?

If people don't want it to be about race or an -ism then approach life solutions as a people. Race is a distraction from the problem, make that multitude of problems, and keeps them from being solved. Who does that benefit? That's the question that needs answered. For sure it benefits those running the country who really don't care who gets elected. They are far above the problems faced by everyday people.

Seriously, can racism truly be the root cause of our collective problems or is it deeper than that? How about ignorance? How about lack of education? How about parental influence? How about both parents working? How about poverty?

Is there racism? Yes of course there is. There's misogyny. There's sexism. There is certainly age discrimination too. This is certainly no country for old people. There's struggling to make ends meet. There's poverty. There's regular poverty and bone crushing poverty. There's never get your head up poverty. There's hopeless poverty.

There is plenty of poverty. There's more than enough to go around. Also, no particular race has cornered the market on poverty. There is an entire belt of poverty throughout the Appalachias. There is generational poverty in various geographic locations and blighted urban areas. Poverty is a common denominator.

I will posit that for too many people life is something that is happening to them rather than something they are living to the fullest. There's more to life than just existing; getting through the day.

We need stop reducing the problems humanity faces to race and racism. Take the "race" box off of forms. It compartmentalizes humans. Otherwise people will be forever crunching numbers to show disparity and drawing lines in the sand simply waiting for the next incident to latch onto. I believe that if we stop using institutional racism as an excuse then we can make some progress.

Because at the end of the day six months from now the majority of people in this country will be living in the same physical location and in the same circumstances as they are now. The Talking Heads will have a new cause célèbre occupying the news cycle.