getting along

"People are people so why should it be,
You and I should get along so awfully..."
(from "People are people" by Depeche Mode)

That is the question, isn't it.

[the self of the other matters more than my truth]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace:

But what about those who in the name of truth oppress the weak? This brings us to the second implication of the encounter between Jesus, Caiaphas, and Pilate, which must always complement the first: the self of the other matters more than my truth. Though I must be ready to deny myself for the sake of the truth, I may not sacrifice the other at the altar of my truth. Jesus, who claimed to be the Truth, refused to use violence to “persuade” those who did not recognize his truth. The kingdom of truth he came to proclaim was the kingdom of freedom and therefore cannot rest on pillars of violence. Commitment to nonviolence must accompany commitment to truth otherwise commitment to truth will generate violence. The truth is a shield against the violence of the strong against the weak, I argued earlier. If the shield is not to turn into a deadly weapon, it must be held in a hand that refuses to do violence, I want to add here.

Volf, p. 272

hellooo

It's easy to "love" people from a distance. But do they feel the love?

 It's also easy to label people from a distance, a distance that lets us think that we (whoever we are) are somehow different, normal, better, right, a distance that hides our common humanity.

[flexible order and changing identities]

From Miroslav Volf's book Exclusion and Embrace, discussing the prodigal son:

For the father, the priority of the relationship means not only a refusal to let the moral rules be the final authority regulating “exclusion” and “embrace” but also a refusal to construct his identity in isolation from his sons. He readjusts his identity along with the changing identities of his sons and thereby reconstructs their broken identities and relationships. He suffers being “un-fathered” by both, so that through this suffering he may regain both as his sons (if the older brother was persuaded) and help them rediscover each other as brothers. Refusing the alternatives of “self-constructed” vs. “imposed” identities, difference vs. domestication, he allows himself to be taken on the journey of their shifting identities so that he can continue to be their father and they, each other’s brothers. Why does he not lose himself on the journey? Because he is guided by indestructible love and supported by a flexible order.

Flexible order? Changing identities? The world of fixed rules and stable identities is the world of the older brother. The father destabilizes this world—and draws his older son’s anger upon himself. The father’s most basic commitment is not to rules and given identities but to his sons whose lives are too complex to be regulated by fixed rules and whose identities are too dynamic to be defined once for all. Yet he does not give up the rules and the order. Guided by the indestructible love which makes space in the self for others in their alterity, which invites the others who have transgressed to return, which creates hospitable conditions for their confession, and rejoices over their presence, the father keeps re-configuring the order without destroying it so as to maintain it as an order of embrace rather than exclusion.

Volf, p. 165

prodigal

Definitely not the story that Jesus told, and definitely not a picture of our heavenly Father who loves all his children.

opposite sunday

What we do and what we say are often not in sync, and it seems that "opposite Sunday" has made this apparent to this pastor. Not that the "unopposited" saying "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is a good saying to start with, but if a person says it and then is actively doing the opposite....

guess

A "Guess who's coming to dinner" program would be a lot more exciting if the invitations were handed out on street corners and in the inner-city, don't you think? Unfortunately, it's not any more likely to happen than "Back to church Sunday" attracting large masses of people. In this example, one can only assume that either the woman found the brochure lying around somewhere, or that a very adventurous parishioner handed some out in a red-light district.

Today's reading: Matthew 22: 1 - 14.

Background for those who are not part of this particular church sub-culture phenomenon: some churches hold a "Guess who's coming to dinner" event. Everyone interested signs up. The organizer makes groups comprised of four individuals or couples, and chooses one host from each group. The host only knows that three other sets of people will be coming over for dinner, but not who they are. The other three sets of people only know whose house they will be going to, but not who the other invitees are. After the first dinner where they all meet, each couple takes a turn hosting during the following three weeks.

[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.