[is it possible to be neutral?]

For an intriguing discussion of whether it is possible to remain neutral between two opposing sides and to simply seek to build bridges between them, with much reference to Martin Luther King and the ways in which he approached this, check out this article:

Is Prophetic Neutrality Possible? by David W. Congdon

A related quote from Elie Wiese: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”

[us and the other]

Brian McLaren speaks about two dangers:

All of us are poised between two dangers. The obvious one is “The Other.” The subtle one is “Us.” If we defend ourselves against the Other, if we attack the Other, we gain credibility with “Us.” We show that we are loyal, supportive, believers, members of Us, and we are generously rewarded and affirmed. We gain a lot by attacking the Other—in religious circles as well as political ones.

Ironically, Us can be as great a threat to each of us as the other is, probably greater. Us might withdraw its approval of me. It might label me disloyal, unsupportive, unbeliever, unorthodox, liberal, anathema, etc. To be rebuked, marginalized, or excluded by Us is an even greater threat than to be attacked by the Other.

Our fear becomes all the more acute when we venture to do what many of us in this dialogue are doing: we are daring to defend and humanize the Other. We are showing—however feebly and adolescently—a grain of neighborliness and solidarity with the Other. At that moment, we become vulnerable as never before to attacks by Us, i.e. our fellow Christians. In my experience, it takes much more courage to stand up to or apart from Us than it does to stand either against or with the Other…

Brian D. McLaren, pp. 47-48, in Why did Jesus, Moses, the Buddha, and Mohammed Cross the Road? Christian Identity in a Multi-Faith World

peter's crazy vision

Acts 10 - 11 give the account of Peter's vision. In the dream, he, a Jew, is instructed to eat all kinds of creatures. He declines to do so, on account of these things being impure or unclean according to Old Testament laws. Then the same God who gave these laws, tells him not to call anything that God has made unclean. Shortly thereafter, some Gentiles arrive at his gate, having been sent by an angel.

It would appear that God has changed His mind here, or is at least indicating clearly that certain laws from before do not apply anymore. This frees Peter up to reach out to the Gentile visitors.


Might there be other things which God said before, which He does not want us to hold to anymore? And what if our reply is "You're crazy! That's not what the Bible says"?

the right side of history

"Here's the funny thing about history: sometimes you can't tell you're on the wrong side of it, especially when it's being made."
John Boyle, Citizen Times, Aug 11/12 (source)

Here is a review of history, and some of the times that the church has been on the wrong side of it. Note that in most cases, there were also believers on the right side of history, but it seems it took quite some time before that became clear to all involved.


Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou, in an article about Evangelicals and the Wrong Side of History, says the following:

While evangelicals used Bible verses to deny women the right to vote, a very religious Fredrick Douglass and the suffrage movement used the Bible to support the full enfranchisment of women.

... the largest and most powerful evangelical denomination in the country, the Southern Baptist Convention, does not allow women to serve as pastors and through its lobbying arm has supported anti-choice, anti-gay marriage, and anti-immigrant agendas.

Rev. Billy Graham is another example of the evangelical tendency to lag behind in social progress. Rev. Graham, the undisputed leader of American evangelicalism for the past five decades, used a biblical argument to support the passage of North Carolina constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.... In the same manner, Graham refused to denounce segregation after a direct appeal from Dr. King in 1957. (source and full article)

150 years ago	100 years ago	50 years ago	Today
Abolishment of slavery	Suffragette / right to vote	Desegregation	Marriage equality / civil rights for LGBT people
Churches used the bible to defend slavery	Churches used the bible to keep women "in their place" and deny the right to vote	Churches used the bible to justify lesser status of blacks	Churches use the bible to put down lgbt people

Most Christians, looking back at history, would be loathe to return to the days when black people were enslaved, aboriginal people were beaten down, women had no vote and so on. In other words, they now accept that history was right. Yet in today's current hot issue – the acceptance of gay and lesbian people, they fight and object and "stand firm".

culture war

Are we in a culture war?

What cultures are involved?

On a friend's blog, Jarred posted a comment which speaks to this:

Jarred said...
Emily: I would encourage you to beware of the Middle Ground Fallacy when it comes to speaking of the "culture war." After all, only one "side" of the "culture war" thinks of it in terms of being a "culture war" and has invested much time and effort in painting the other "side" as thinking in the same terms and behaving accordingly. The other "side" thinks of it in terms of struggling to gain the same human dignity and legal protections for all people.
May 16, 2012 10:10 AM  (source)

So there is the question of, "are we really in a culture war" or are Christians just not happy about no longer being in power. There is also the reality of the gap between what pastors and denominations believe and what the parishioners believe, and correspondingly, what each is willing to "fight" for.

 Ironically, in a world where the dominant perception of Christians is that we are judgemental and anti-gay, many evangelicals are rushing to support and promote Chick-fil-A now that its owner has publically stated that his company is against same-sex marriage. That's sure to help everyone to see and know that Jesus loves them no matter what!!

---

More reading: Some words for Christians on both sides of the Chick-fil-A war by Rachel Held Evans.

[joel mckerrow :: confession for the white part in me]

"Joel McKerrow is an international touring performance poet, writer, educator, youth worker, thinker and activist based out of Melbourne, Australia. He is the founder of ‘The Centre for Poetics and Justice’ (www.cpj.org.au/), a not-for-profit, community arts organisation focused on using poetics as a form of literary education, self-expression and social engagement for marginalised teenagers." (from his website).

 What Joel confesses in these videos fits perfectly with this site, in terms of addressing marginalization and in terms of saying sorry for what has been done from positions of power and privilege. These are amazing videos -- both in terms of the confessions being made, the speaking of them, and the appropriately artistic videography.

The four videos in the series:
my confession part 1: for the white part in me (featured above)

my confession part 2: for the rich part in me

my confession part 3: for the Christian part of me

my confession part 4: for the masculine part of me

---

For those of you living near Edmonton, Joel will be part of an evening event on Thursday, August 2nd at the Bleeding Heart Arts Space.

defining enemy

Turns out that one of the Bible verses about "enemies of God" was in the church lectionary, and pastor decided to preach about it. That's fine, until he made a "real-life application" which included determining who today are the enemies of God.

His words are hurting men and women in his congregation – for themselves or for a loved one. They may even feel that they have to choose between doing what the church thinks is right and what their hearts and conscience tell them to do.

What makes him think he can know? Does he see into people's hearts and minds?

How can our words and actions welcome others, and help them move closer to God?

unbaptized enemies

Can we agree to major on the majors? Can we focus on what really matters to the kingdom, and agree to disagree on the secondary things?

How easily we get distracted from what matters to the Kingdom of God. And surely quantity of water cannot be one of them. In this cartoon, pastor lumps the church down the street in with "enemies of God" because they baptize by sprinkling instead of immersion.

Growing up, I attended a Baptist church in Manitoba. It was part of a Baptist association which believed in baptism by immersion as an adult, and where one had to be baptized to be a member. They were completely against infant baptism. And they didn't just believe in immersion, they insisted on it.

Here's where the problem came up: when a person who had been baptized as an adult by sprinkling (in another denomination, obviously) came to the church (perhaps having gotten married to one of its members), they could not become a member unless they were baptized by immersion. Which meant that they had to be baptized again (from their perspective; from the church's perspective, it was for the first time). So really, it wasn't a matter of the person's ability to understand, or their conscious desire to be baptized, it was the quantity of water that was the problem.

One of the other churches in the denomination finally left due to such things.

If a person or a denomination feels so strongly about something, how many steps are they away from seeing the other person or church as misguided? heretical? the enemy?

How will people see the love of God for them when the churches they see are in conflict about things that are really not that important?


Note: this cartoon  was originally published on June 29, 2012, but that puts it out of sequence, in that chronologically it should have taken place before pastor inadvertantly outed himself on Sunday, June 17th . So I republished it to have it appear before.

the christian agenda

So much talk in conservative Christian circles about the gay agenda, about how gay people want to destroy churches and recruit children to homosexuality and so on. What about Christians? Do they have an agenda? It seems they do, and it's easy enough to suss out if one follows the news.

This cartoon captures a snapshot over time -- the first frame being an ongoing issue faced by teens when their good kind Christian parents kick them out of the house upon finding out their son or daughter is gay (sometimes on the advice of their pastor), the second frame something that was more commonly said in the early days of AIDS, and the last frame very recent. If you don't know the context, google "pastor worley fence" (especially if you are a follower of Jesus, you need to know what kinds of things other Christians are saying in public).

What will you answer if someone asks you about Pastor Worley?

How can you make the world a safer better place for everyone by showing Jesus' love and standing up against the mistreatment of those on the margins?

defining anti-gay

The pastor and church doesn't treat lgbt people the same as straight people, yet claims to not be anti-gay. Do you agree? Does it matter how lgbt members of the congregation feel about this?

Who defines anti-gay — the powerful or the powerless? The privileged or the marginalized?

Compare this cartoon with the 'defining hate' cartoon — there it is pretty obvious that we wouldn't and shouldn't let the slave owner decide whether he is being hateful toward his slaves. Is it as easy to decide with this cartoon? While the overall situations are not parallel, do the same principles apply in terms of the minority being given a voice and the right to say whether they feel those in power are against them?

defining hate

Would you believe the slave owner who says that he does not hate his slaves? Would you even need to ask the slaves their opinion on this question? Or would you say that owning someone is inherently hateful regardless of whether you "take good care of them" or not?

Who defines hate - the powerless or the powerful?