[sin as exclusion]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

An advantage of conceiving sin as the practice of exclusion is that it names as sin what often passes as virtue, especially in religious circles. In the Palestine of Jesus’ day, “sinners” were not simply “the wicked” who were therefore religiously bankrupt (so Sanders 1985), but also social outcasts, people who practiced despised trades, Gentiles and Samaritans, those who failed to keep the Law as interpreted by a particular sect (Dunn 1988, 276-80). A “righteous” person had to separate herself from the latter; their presence defiled because they were defiled. Jesus’ table fellowship with “tax collectors and sinners” (Mark 2:15-17), a fellowship that indisputably belonged to the central features of his ministry, offset this conception of sin. Since he who was innocent, sinless, and fully within God’s camp transgressed social boundaries that excluded the outcasts, these boundaries themselves were evil, sinful, and outside God’s will (Neyrey 1988, 79). By embracing the “outcast,” Jesus underscored the “sinfulness” of the persons and systems that cast them out.

It would be a mistake, however, to conclude from Jesus’ compassion toward those who transgressed social boundaries that his mission was merely to demask the mechanisms that created “sinners” by falsely ascribing sinfulness to those who were considered socially unacceptable (pace Borg 1994, 46-61). He was no prophet of “inclusion” (with Johnson 1996, 43f.), for whom the chief virtue was acceptance and the cardinal vice intolerance. Instead, he was the bringer of “grace,” who not only scandalously included “anyone” in the fellowship of “open commensality” (Crossan 1991, 261-64; Crossan 1994, 66-70), but made the “intolerant” demand of repentance and the “condescending” offer of forgiveness (Mark 1:15; 2:15-17). The mission of Jesus consisted not simply in re-naming the behavior that was falsely labeled “sinful” but also in re-making the people who have actually sinned or suffered misfortune. The double strategy of re-naming and re-making, rooted in the commitment to both the outcast and the sinner, to the victim and the perpetrator, is the proper background against which an adequate notion of sin as exclusion can emerge.

Volf, pp. 72-73

defense of marriage

It's been said that what we value is seen less by our words and more by what we spend our time, energy and resources on. If that's the case, one might wonder how much we as Christians really value marriage.

Both divorce and common-law relationships are counter to the traditional Christian understanding of marriage, yet I do not see anyone engaging in protests or political action to have those revoked or cancelled. Yet when gay and lesbian people want to enter into committed marriage relationships with their partners, straight conservative Christians are expending enormous amounts of energy to stop them.

So do Christians value marriage? Really??

Perhaps some Christians just value heterosexuality and the privilege that comes with it, including the privilege of promoting marriage but having the option to get out of it. That's a convenience many do not want to give up, considering that divorce rates are generally as high among Christians as they are among those of other faiths.

Or perhaps, rather than being about valuing marriage or heterosexuality per se, this is about conformity and order and power, and thus some devalue and castigate those who are different from themselves – men and women who are equally loved by our heavenly Father and who have other beliefs, views, interests, attractions.

n.b. I am not a historian, and do not know how many objections Christians had to the legalization of divorce and the establishment of common law status and benefits, at the time that these were initially happening. I am commenting here on the current reality of what I see taking place in North America.

[why not choose love?]

From Carl Greg's post “Why Not Choose Love? Picking and Choosing Scripture as a Twenty-first Century Christian"

Progressive Christians are sometimes accused of “picking and choosing” Bible verses for their own convenience. But I would invite you to consider that, upon close inspection, all Christians pick and choose when it comes to the Bible. The same Bible has been used throughout history to affirm both slavery and emancipation, sexism and equality, violence and nonviolence. The question, then, becomes what criteria should we use to pick and choose between various parts of scripture. This week’s Gospel lesson invites us to consider Jesus’ own way of reading scripture as a potential model for picking and choosing."

Carl goes on to suggest that if we are choosing anyway, why not choose love instead of hate, and talks about Jesus' emphasis. Read the entire post here.

third row

I often hear Christians use the phrase "love the sinner and hate the sin" when responding to the topic of homosexuality. Little do they know that this statement is hated by many gay and lesbian people.

"Love the sinner and hate the sin." We don't typically use this to refer to our friend, our grandma, our neighbour or the pastor at church. No, it's used to refer to someone whom we see as being different than us, someone who is a sinner unlike me and you who are good Christians. It labels people. It puts distance between us. It others them.

And despite the first half of the saying, the other person in the relationship rarely feels the love.

n.b. This phrase is not in the Bible. It "apparently comes from a letter that St. Augustine wrote to some contentious nuns. Augustine's phrase, "cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum," "with love of persons and hatred of sins," is used parenthetically, and does not even mention "sinners." (source)

[homeless for the holidays]

Carl Siciliano, Executive Director of New York's Ali Forney Center, writes:

Over the past few weeks I have been meeting with homeless LGBT youth. Each young person was, at the time I met with and photographed them, struggling to survive out on the streets as they waited for one of the few youth shelter beds in New York City to open up to them.

Read the rest of his account, along with the eleven photo+words vignettes that tell the stories of some of these youth who have been rejected by their families because of their sexuality and are now living on the streets of New York:
Homeless for the holidays: portraits of New York City's homeless lgbt youth

Their experiences are not unique to New York City. LGBT youth are mistreated and kicked out by their families regularly, including families who claim to be Christian and who devoutly attend church.

bully-free

heart exam

fred and his friends

Fred Phelps (not to be confused with Michael Fred Phelps the swimmer) is the pastor of Westboro Baptist Church, a small church comprised mostly of his family members. They are infamous for picketing at gay parades, funerals of gay people and soldiers, etc. Regrettably, they are the "face of Christianity" that some people see in the media -- full of hatred and bigotry and about the worst that a person can be. This Google images page will give you a visual idea of what they are all about (warning: disturbing images). Their main website is godhatesfags.com. They have been involved in this since the late '80s or so. They continue be active in picketing -- as recently as 2006, President Bush signed a Respect for America's Fallen Heros Act to stop them from picketing at military funerals.

You can also read about him on wikipedia. When I read the wikipedia article, I was quite surprised to read that Mr. Phelps is a lawyer who in his younger years was involved in fighting numerous civil rights cases on behalf of black clients. Kinda unexpected.

In any case, the cartoon takes him and his followers to the extreme. Content may be disturbing.

For the record, I have no idea as to whether Fred and his followers will make it to heaven or not. From an illustrative perspective, the angel is rather simplistic and I would in the long-run like to have a better "angel type" for my cartoons. Nonetheless, the idea is there.

[self-perceived goodness]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

In a profound reading of the Gospels in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche underscored the connection between the self-perceived “goodness” of Jesus’ enemies and their pursuit of his death; crucifixion was a deed of “the good and just,” not of the wicked, as we might have thought. “The good and just” could not understand Jesus because their spirit was “imprisoned in their good conscience” and they crucified him because they construed as evil his rejection of their notions of good (Nietzsche 1969, 229: Westphal 1993, 262f.).

“The good and just,” insists Nietzsche, have to crucify the one who devises an alternative virtue because they already possess the knowledge of the good; they have to be hypocrites because, seeing themselves as good, they must impersonate the absence of evil. Like poisonous flies, “they sting” and they do so “in all innocence” (Nietzsche 1969, 204). Exclusion can be as much a sin of “a good conscience” as it is of “an evil heart.” And Nietzsche’s warning that “whatever harm the world-calumniators may do, the harm the good do is the most harmful harm” may not be entirely out of place (Nietzsche 1979, 100).

Volf, p. 61

n.b. calumniator means "someone who makes malicious or false statements or charges"

blond

Have you ever heard a blond joke which was about a blond guy? I haven't. Blond jokes -- even if the target is just referred to as "a blond", are always about women.

So along with the discrimination and prejudice which women generally face, a woman who is blond has an additional layer to tend with. This is sometimes referred to as intersectionality -- when more than one type of discrimination or prejudice impacts a person. Another example of this is the experience of black women who are discriminated against based on both gender and race.

transfur

[space for others]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

Chapter III develops the basic argument, best summarized in the Apostle Paul’s injunction to the Romans: “Welcome one another, therefore, just as Christ has welcomed you” (15:7). To describe the process of “welcoming,” I employ the metaphor of “embrace.” The metaphor seems well suited to bring together the three interrelated themes that are central to my proposal: (1) the mutuality of self-giving love in the Trinity (the doctrine of God), (2) the outstretched arms of Christ on the cross for the “godless” (the doctrine of Christ), (3) the open arms of the “father” receiving the “prodigal” (the doctrine of salvation)….

The most basic thought that it seeks to express is important: the will to give ourselves to others and ‘welcome’ them, to readjust our identities to make space for them, is prior to any judgment about others, except that of identifying them in their humanity. The will to embrace precedes any “truth” about others and any construction of their “justice.”

Volf, p. 28-29

abstinence

This cartoon reminds me of that famous line from Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Aside from issues of right and wrong, do we hear what we are saying? Do we understand why it is reasonable for such statements to be perceived as anti-gay?

to the margins

Who's on the throne of your life?

And who is on the throne of Jesus' life? Not the one who made himself nothing and came to serve us....

[quotes from volf]

I have been reading Miroslav Volf’s book Exclusion & Embrace over the past few months. It has made for fascinating and challenging reading which I am enjoying despite the tough slog it is to get through. While the subtitle of this blog relates to the title of his book, this blog is not about his book and there are significant differences between the two. For starters, Volf is much much smarter than I am. Secondly, his book is subtitled “A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation” and his personal experience that relates to this comes from the conflict between Serbs and Croatians. My blog, on the other hand, uses cartoons to explore issues of church, community, gender, poverty, sexuality and so on in the context of exclusion and embrace, rejection and acceptance.

One of the book’s endorsements, by Lewis Smedes, describes it well:

Exclusion and Embrace is a stunningly brilliant analysis of the toughest Christian challenge of our time: how to understand the persistent alienation of peoples in our world, alienation that is rooted in the strangeness of the other, in tribal memories of ancient wrongs, and the self-deceits of all – even the most victimized – groups in the conflict. It is a magnificent blend of insightful theology, historical vision, and human insights, one that is enriched by the author’s own multinational identity.

I will periodically be posting quotes from his book that seem to relate to the bigger issues involved here. They will be labeled “quotes from volf”.

If you are interested in reading the book yourself, here’s the reference:
Exclusion & Embrace: A Theological Exploration of Identity, Otherness, and Reconciliation
Miroslav Volf (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996).

You might like to watch some videos of Volf sharing some of his thoughts. The Work of the People has seven videos. More can be found on YouTube.

See all posts with quotes from Volf.