abandon the moral circle

If you have not seen my previous post about moral circles, read this first and then this.

How to bring the not-kin into the circle?

with arms wide open

How to move myself out of the circle?

follow jesus out of it

How to make the circle disappear?

love your neighbour and your enemy

Some thoughts about addressing our moral circle:

Identify the general location of your moral circle.

Act across the moral circle.

Weave connections across the circle.

Expand the moral circle.

Step out of the moral circle.

Step over the moral circle.

Live as if the moral circle does not exist.
(This essentially destroys the moral circle, as I only have one if I let it exist, if I live like it does...)


And that's what Jesus does, isn't it?

Jesus acts across the boundaries that others would want him to have, he steps out of the expectations of kin versus not-kin, he lives as if the moral circle does not exist... loving everyone, friends and enemies alike.

jesus and his "moral circle"

Enlarged spleen, enlarged prostate, enlarged heart... 

enlarged moral circle??

If you have not seen my previous post about the moral circle, read this first.

Of course, Jesus wouldn't see a doctor about his moral circle being enlarged, as he wouldn't see an enlarged moral circle as a problem. In fact, if Jesus even has a "moral circle", it probably looks like this:

Now that's a large "moral circle" -- more commonly referred to as extravagant, limitless self-giving love. What do you expect from a God who so loved the world, and from his Son who embraces everyone...

And we who are followers of Jesus, are called to follow him in loving in extravagant, limitless, self-giving love. Time to work on some circle-enlarging exercises....

moral circles

Did you know that you have a moral circle? And while it might sound like something positive, for the most part it isn't positive at all. It divides our world into family and not-family, kin and not-kin, into us and them, into people and "ends to our means".


Here's how Richard Beck describes our moral circle:

... These two instinctive processes [differentiating kin from non-kin, and extending '"kindness" toward our "kin"'] create what Singer calls our moral circle. That is, we psychologically draw a circle around a group of people whom we identify as "my kind," "my tribe," "my clan," "my family." This circle is initially populated with family members, but as we grow the circle includes more and more non-biological relations, "friends" who are "like family to us."

... In Kantian language, people inside the moral circle are treated as ends in themselves while people on the outside of the moral circle are treated as means to our ends. We treat those inside the moral circle with love, affection, and mercy, and those outside the moral circle with indifference, hostility, or pragmatism. And all of this flows naturally from a simple psychological mechanism: Are you identified as "family"?

Richard Beck, Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality, and Mortality

(pp. 100-101)

[de-baptize me]

+++++

"Please de-baptize me," she said.
The priest's face crumpled.
"My parents tell me you did it," she said.
"But I was not consulted. So
Now, undo it."
The priest's eyes asked why.
"If it were just about belonging to
This religion and being forgiven,
Then I would stay. If it were just
About believing
This list of doctrines and upholding
This list of rituals,
I'd be OK. But
Your sermon Sunday made
It clear it's
About more. More
Than I bargained for. So, please,
De-baptize me."
The priest looked down, said
Nothing. She continued:
"You said baptism sends
Me into the
World to
Love enemies. I don't. Nor
Do I plan to. You said it means
Being willing to stand
Against the flow. I like the flow.
You described it like rethinking
Everything, like joining a
Movement. But
I'm not rethinking or moving anywhere.
So un-baptize me. Please."
The priest began to weep. Soon
Great sobs rose from his deepest heart.
He took off his glasses, blew his nose, took
Three tissues to dry his eyes.
"These are tears of joy," he said.
"I think you
Are the first person who ever
Truly listened or understood."
"So," she said,
"Will you? Please?"


- Brian McLaren

Reprinted with permission. From Brian McLaren's blog.

does not apply to future situations

just can't do it...

Can you imagine Jesus throwing spears at soldiers of the occupying Roman army? Or even at the pictures of faces of soldiers, for practice?

I can't. Would Jesus be acclaimed as the leader of the Jewish resistance movement? Certainly some of his people were hoping he'd be that kind of Messiah, but that's not who he is nor what he came to do.

Instead, he willingly gave up his life to show us that violence is not the way to go.

---

And in the world late last week, outrage on Twitter at news of a South Florida police department using mugshots of black people for target practice. How's that for continued dehumanization of black people?

Police chief defends use of photos of real people for target practice. @NBC6 investigation #humantargets pic.twitter.com/ORdRa0wq1U
— NBC 6 South Florida (@nbc6) January 15, 2015

Granted these men were charged with crimes. That doesn't change the fact that they are human beings, with mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, other family members and friends. They are men created by the God of the universe, and no matter what, some glimpse of his image remains. Jesus loves them and gave his life for them.

---

And in very related news, the BBC reports that Sgt. Deant, a soldier in the National Guard was shocked when she saw her own brother's face as one of the target images at the North Miami Beach Police firing range which she was using after a training session.

The photo of her brother Woody Deant had been taken after his arrest as a teenager for drag racing. It had been shot several times.

Mr Deant said he was "speechless" when he heard the news.

"Now I'm being used as a target? I'm not even living that life according to how they portrayed me as. I'm a father. I'm a husband. I'm a career man. I work nine to five."

The first shall be last and the last shall be first.

---

And for a small glimmer of solidarity from WP:

In response to FL police using #humantargets - Clergy in uniform have now sent photos saying #usemeinstead @BrettBetkoski @nbc6 @deray
— Shane Claiborne (@ShaneClaiborne) January 17, 2015

Reminds me slightly of the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe who at Auschwitz took the place of a man who was going to be killed by starvation.

come, you who are blessed...

Come, you who are blessed by my Father;

take your inheritance,

the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

For I was hungry and you passed laws against feeding the homeless,

I was thirsty and you gave me a religious tract,

I was a stranger and you fought for the right to discriminate against me,

I needed clothes and you filled your closet with the latest fads,

I was sick and you refused to give your employees health benefits,

I was in prison and you used me for cheap labour.

Matthew 25:34-40, adapted.

[repay violence with violence]

Since Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot to death by Darren Wilson, a police officer, in Ferguson Missouri this past summer (Aug 9, 2014),

since that time,

and more since since the grand jury decided not to indict Wilson (Nov 24, 2014),

I have occasionally had the following thought pop into my head:


On a happy sunny day, a sniper (a white sniper, to avoid increasing racial violence) should take out Wilson's teenage son as he's walking down the street on his way home from school.


And today, only today, after reading an article by Suzanne Ross (see below), I'm thinking,

"Did I seriously wish that?

How do I -- the guy with this blog about embracing people instead of excluding them -- wish that someone would kill Wilson's kid? And to take so long to realize what I'm wishing....


For starters, his son is as valuable as Michael Brown and also deserves to live a life free of violence. Of course, in a country with systemic racism, the opposite is the reality: Wilson's son is considered as worthy of having a life free of violence, and Michael Brown just doesn't matter....

so perhaps I'm reacting in an equal and opposite way.

But as a follower of Jesus, I should see all lives as being valued and equally deserving a life free of violence, regardless.

[ending the teaching of contempt against the church’s sexual minorities]

Dr. David P. Gushee, a leading evangelical ethicist, has just given an incredible talk at the Reformation Project's Regional Training Conference.

Entitled “Ending the Teaching of Contempt against the Church’s Sexual Minorities”, it is a must-read.


In the talk, he addresses the

unchristlike body of Christian tradition,

amounting to what can be fairly described as a teaching of contempt against one particular group, which was prevalent in the church for centuries until the mid 1900's, and then compares that to a similar teaching of contempt has been directed against another group in more recent years.

Read Dr. Gushee's talk. This is a must-read if you are a Christian serious about your faith.

---

Related:
My cartoon about Martin Luther
My cartoon about who is ostracized

if anyone stumbles...

Young people leaving the church. Young people being kicked out of church, or kicked out of their homes by their religious parents. Because they're gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, or whatever, and by whatever, I mean whatever - sexual orientation or otherwise.

I'm tired of it happening, and it makes me sad and mad. Where did we lose Jesus?

---

If anyone causes one of these little ones — those who believe in me — to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Matthew 18:6 NIV

[forsaken]

I don't generally get super-angry and riled up when I read about rebels in some other country killing school children, or large corporations avoiding labour laws and increasing profits by moving their operations to other countries. It's wrong, and something should be done about it. But I don't get super-angry, because "that's what you expect from rebels" and "that's what you expect corporations to be doing". (Perhaps my non-anger is a problem, but we'll leave that for another post).

But once in a while I read an article which makes me really angry, because I expect more of those who are doing wrong. 

Case in point:

A recent Rolling Stone article gives this disturbing finding from a recent study:

Highly religious parents are significantly more likely than their less-religious counterparts to reject their children for being gay – a finding that social-service workers believe goes a long way toward explaining why LGBT people make up roughly five percent of the youth population overall, but an estimated 40 percent of the homeless-youth population.

So much for "the least of these."

Read it for yourself if you want something to be angry about.

The next two cartoons were inspired by reading this article...

---

Believe Out Loud also has a shorter article about a recent video/audio recording which received broad exposure on the internet, of a set of Christian parents rejecting their gay son.

excommunicated

Are there similar grounds for excommunicating you?

cruci-fix

Having problems with too many undesirable people coming to your church?

Here's a great solution:

If you haven't heard, there's been some controversy over "anti-homeless spikes" appearing in various places -- outside a record store in London England, in an apartment entry in Montreal, and more. While supposedly intended to stop loitering or to reduce anti-social behaviour, they result in reducing the places where homeless people can find "shelter" at night.

After some outcry, including the mayor of Montreal insisting they be removed as that is not the image he wants for Montreal, most spikes were removed. The bigger question, asked by Matthew Pearce of Montreal's Old Brewery Mission, is: what is really going to be done for the homeless? Do we just want to look like we're not mean to the homeless, or are we going to do something positive and effective?

But seriously, what I'm asking here is: in what ways are the behaviours and attitudes of Christians functioning like the spikes? Functioning in such a way that when people see a building with a cross on it, they feel unwelcome, unwanted, judged and rejected?

[wwjb?]

what would jesus bake? and who would jesus bake for?

Forcing a Christian to bake a cake for a gay wedding is like forcing an African-American to bake a cake for the KKK.

Richard Land, Evangelical Pastor

I’d rather go to jail than make a cake for a gay wedding.

Jack Phillips, Christian Baker

If someone compels you to bake a cake for them, bake them two cakes.

Jesus, servant to all

Matthew 5:38-42, paraphrased for our time and culture.

p.s.
And you'd better make sure they are good cakes too!

rob g

---

On a related note, Tony Campolo tells this story about throwing a birthday party for a prostitute:

Read Tony's story about the birthday party for a prostitute.

If video is not embedded, click here to watch it on YouTube.

streaking

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said in an interview (source):

"There's always a pragmatic streak in evangelicalism that negotiates away orthodoxy for cultural acceptance."


My observation:

"There's often a dogmatic streak in evangelicalism that negotiates away mercy for self righteousness."


What do you think?

who would jesus stone?

.... and we all know forever is a very long time.

Jesus stoning people? Rather an outrageous idea, don'tcha think?

What inspired this sick cartoon commentary on Jesus and the effects of playing Xbox, was the message which a church in New York City put on its sign this month (March, 2014), a message which is not funny in the slightest:

Jesus would stone homos, the sign says. It then quotes four verses and concludes with, "Stoning is still the law."

Would Jesus really stone gay and lesbian people? Let's use their four verses of choice to consider the answer:

Here's a breakdown of the verses, each with a summary and a comment by me:

Matthew 5:17-19

Jesus speaks about not abolishing the law but fulfilling it.

Jesus did not get rid of the Old Testament law about stoning... (fairly clear) but came to fulfill it (the meaning of this is up for discussion). Doesn't support their premise.

Leviticus 20:13

Putting to death men who have sex with men.

Fairly clear verse, but doesn't tell us what Jesus would do, especially considering that Jesus broke other Old Testament rules, like working on the Sabbath, associating with sinners, etc.

Deuteronomy 17:5-7

About stoning people who do evil things and worshiped the stars, sun and moon.

Strange choice of verse, as it does not mention same-sex relations, and there are other verses about stoning which could have been included. Again, does not tell us if Jesus would stone people who do evil things.

John 8:1-11

Ironically, this is the passage about the teachers of the law and the Pharisees bringing the woman caught in adultery to Jesus... and you might know the rest of the story (if not, read it here).

Perhaps they included this passage because Jesus did not object to stoning, but said that whoever is without sin should throw the first stone, thus supposedly legitimizing stoning and suggesting that he (being sinless) could have stoned her?

And that's what makes this choice of verse so ironic, because the Jesus who the pastor of ATLAH claims "would stone homos", the Jesus who is without sin, did not stone the woman! Claims like those made by ATLAH are projections of their own hatred and bias, in religious disguise and with false Biblical justification.

The idea of Jesus stoning anyone is simply inconsistent with his life. And if I have to choose between verses and the life of Jesus, I'll take the life of Jesus anytime.

giving up chocolate for lent

Giving up chocolate for Lent is hard if you are a chocolate lover. Other people choose to give up eating meat, or Facebook, or an activity of some sort or other. The idea is to remove something which distracts us from God and from preparing for Easter.

What about the deeper things which are often so much a part of us that we hardly are conscious of their existence? Or those things we are aware of and should give up, yet have no idea how?


Check out the top 100 things people are giving up for Lent.

arizona

As anti-discrimination  legislation is slowing making its way across the U.S., the backlash often takes the form of claiming that such things infringe on one's religious freedom.

Several cases have gotten into the news: a wedding photographer who was sued after refusing to take photos at a same-sex wedding, a Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and Christian bed and breakfast owners who did not want a gay couple staying at their B&B and ended up in court.

So there are demands for exceptions to the non-discrimination laws, so that a person of faith is not obliged to do things against their conscience and faith.

I get this, sort of.

jesus vermin

The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did to me.’

 (Matt 25:40 NIV/robg)

---

Background, from Reuters:

Gambia's President Yahya Jammeh on Tuesday (Feb. 18, 2014) called homosexuals "vermin" and said his government would tackle them in the same way it fights malaria-causing mosquitoes.

The latest comments from Jammeh, who last year branded gays a threat to humanity, coincide with a renewed crackdown on same-sex relationships in Africa, where homosexuality is taboo and illegal in 37 countries.

In recent months, Nigeria has outlawed same-sex relationships and Uganda has voted for life imprisonment for some homosexual acts.

"We will fight these vermins called homosexuals or gays the same way we are fighting malaria-causing mosquitoes, if not more aggressively," Jammeh said in a speech on state television to mark the 49th anniversary of Gambia's independence from Britain.

....

Can you imagine Jesus saying such things? Or treating another person like that?

I can't. Not for one moment.

but for the grace...

 

"There but for the grace of God go I...." How often have you heard someone say this, when seeing or hearing of someone less fortunate, someone in trouble, someone who's messed up their life?

What does it mean? It means that I could easily be there where they are, except for God's grace which has kept me out of that situation.

And what follows from this, is the unspoken conclusion: God's grace hasn't been there to keep them out of the situation.

Does this mean that His grace is selective -- it chooses some and not others? He gives grace to some and leaves others in the dirt? That He might be everywhere, but doesn't always take a supply of grace along? Spelled out like that, what do you think? Is this what you believe?

How about this idea instead: