Answering "LGBTQ Ordination Resource"

We received the document below in reply to the pro-inclusion resource we produced. We intend to give a full response, but in the interest of fairness we first present this document unedited and without comment that you may evaluate it on its own merits. We thank Rev. Tom Hobson for engaging with us in a substantive way and welcome further discussion from him or any other interested parties.


***


Here is Rev. Hobson on what he would emphasize from his response, as communicated to Doug via email:


"The two elements of mine I would lift up above all the others are: the thrice-repeated "the two [man and woman] shall become one flesh" as the central Biblical teaching on sexuality; and my insistence that both OT & NT forbid all sexual behavior outside this context, regardless of whether or not it is loving and mutual.  Loving, mutual same-sex  relations are well-documented in Paul's world (see my Outlook blog "A Progressive Myth", 10/4/10), and the burden of proof is on those who deny that they existed (and are forbidden) in the Bronze Age world of the Hebrews.  A lot of this material is in a book I have recently finished for which I am currently seeking a publisher: What's On God's Sin List For Today?, including discussions of OT law, sexuality, alcohol and drugs (including marijuana and opium in the Biblical world), and gambling (which was well-known in the NT world, but not condemned until after 200 AD)."


ANSWERING “LGBTQ ORDINATION RESOURCE”
By Rev. Tom Hobson, Ph.D., Biblical Exegesis

Here are brief point-by-point answers to the 11 objections to homosexual ordination and the 12 arguments in its favor presented by Rev. Doug Hagler and Rev. Aric Clark. We begin with their answers to objections:

“Homosexuality is an abomination.” [My advice to conservatives: skip this argument. It is not central to our case.] Non-kosher food is an “abomination” (Deut 14:3), not to God, but in the sense that it is to be utterly despised by Jews. Jesus sets aside the kosher food laws for Christians (Mark 7:19), but there is nothing else in the Hebrew Bible described as an “abomination” that is not reaffirmed as sin in the New Testament other than cross-dressing (Deut 22:5). Male and female prostitution are specifically an abomination “to YHWH” (Deut 23:19), as are any form of idolatry, witchcraft, adultery, homosexual behavior, bestiality, and incest. Non-kosher food is the only ritual-cleanliness category for which this term is used.
It is claimed here that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 does not describe a “committed, monogamous relationship between two people of the same gender” because this was “not a category considered in Bronze Age Middle Eastern thought.” No such distinction was necessary. In both Leviticus and 1 Corinthians, we see that love, consent, and commitment are irrelevant. Both active and passive partner are held equally guilty, no matter what their motives or the quality of their relationship.

“Homosexuality is the ‘sin of Sodom’.” How can you deny the obvious?? One can say that intended rape is the real issue, but clearly implied is the sense that Sodom is depraved because they demand sex with their own gender. Homosexuality is never named specifically in other Biblical references to Sodom because the audience already knows the story (although see 2 Pet 2:7, which connects Sodom with the sexual sin of aselgeia). Ezekiel mentions inhospitality, but it also says Sodom did “abominable” deeds, an obvious categorical reference to the abominations named in Leviticus (Ezek 16:50).

“Homosexuality is like pedophilia or bestiality.” True, we cannot lump homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia together, but why is the person who is attracted to children to be viewed as dirt, while everyone else is loved by God? The real issue is not whether those who practice same-sex intercourse are loved by God, but the fact that all three practices in question here both grieve God and harm the person who does them.

“Homosexuality is like incest or polyamory.” The Bible does NOT teach the goodness of behaviors that it tolerates in its characters. That is a deliberate falsehood. The Bible’s central teaching is stated three times, in the Torah, by Jesus, and by Paul: “The two [man and woman] shall become one flesh.” God intends sex only for a lifelong one-flesh relationship between a man and a woman. Any other practice is a departure from God’s intention, including fornication, concubinage, polygamy, and divorce.
What 50% of Americans practice is serial monogamy, not polyamory. With regard to Christian leadership, we regard divorce as sin redeemable by repentance and fidelity to one’s subsequent spouse. In the current debate, we are being asked to affirm homosexuality, not as sin redeemable by repentance, but as a good gift of God and a human right.

“Homosexuality is unnatural.” When we say “unnatural,” we mean that God did not design us to do this. In his book What We Can’t Not Know, Budziszewski argues from God’s design: Our lungs were designed to take in air, not food. The same is true for the issue of practicing sexuality in total defiance to God’s design.
Same-sex relations are a part of nature. But so is sex between different species. So are cancer, schizophrenia, and AIDS. So are black widows and praying mantises who kill and eat their mates, and mackerel who kill purely for sport. “Go and do thou likewise”? And again, why is the natural sexual attraction to children not a part of God’s good creation? If we get rid of our arbitrary notion of consent, and/or if we can ever prove (as some in the APA have tried to do) that sex with children can sometimes be healthy, our objection to it becomes pure hatefulness.

“Homosexuality is dangerous and/or unhealthy.” Homosexuality is no more or less dangerous and/or unhealthy than heterosexual immorality when practiced to the same degree. Both should be avoided.

“Homosexuality is a choice.” We concur that same-sex desire is not a choice. As in the case of substance addiction, the choice is how we respond. We expect a pedophile to make the right choices in response to their attraction to children, even though they did not choose to have these desires. Those with same-sex attraction who choose not to get involved sexually with their own gender tend to have more success breaking free from their desires than those who do become sexually involved.

“Sexual orientation can be changed with ‘reparative therapy’.” The claims that reparative therapy is a cruel hoax are sweeping and unsubstantiated. Reputable reparative therapy has been shown to have a 70% success rate in reducing unwanted same-sex desire, a rate comparable to substance addiction treatment. Both kinds of treatment have a similar rate of recidivism, but no one claims that treatment for addiction is useless or harmful.

“Homosexuality damages society and/or traditional marriage.” Here I defer to page 13 of Alan Wisdom’s article “Is Marriage Worth Defending?” (http://www.theologymatters.com/TM100216.Part1.pdf) He argues that divorce and adultery around us tends to erode the marriages of all married couples. The same would be true for cohabiting couples, and for the acceptance of gay marriage as simply one more lifestyle option.
Again, I reject the claim that the Bible approves of eight different kinds of marriage. The marrying of female captives after a one-month waiting period is the Bible’s unique humane alternative to what everyone else in the Near East: rape and sale into slavery. Marrying a slave promoted her to family status; what’s wrong with that? Jesus rejects polygamy, and Leviticus 18 makes it extremely difficult, since it forbids marriage to any in-law. The only reason we do not favor levirate marriage is because we no longer have the same level of concern for preserving offspring for a man who has died. And the supposed forced marriage of a rape victim is actually marriage of a girl who has been seduced, which the girl’s father can prevent if the male is a jerk. (Here is a case of gratuitously seeking to distort the Bible by exaggeration to make it sound unworthy of belief.)

“Paul condemns homosexuality.” Hagler and Clark’s reading of Romans 1 bears no resemblance to the text or context. Clearly, in Romans 1, homosexuality of both kinds is presented as a warning light for the depths of human depravity, not a gift of God if only it were practiced properly. It is not “cherry-picking” to take Paul’s sin list in 1 Corinthians 6: 9-11 as timeless and universal, both because it reaffirms many Old Testament commands that carried a death penalty (indicating their seriousness), and because it warns that those who continue such practices “shall not inherit the reign of God.”

“Ordaining LGBTQ people makes it harder to work with churches in the rest of the world.” The Two-Thirds World is a reminder to us that our rejection of Biblical sexual ethics is a heresy of Western white revisionists.

The following are responses to the writers’ positive arguments:

“Justification is by faith.” Here is where the writers, in the words of Jude, “twist the grace of God into licentiousness” (Jude 1:4). “Whoever says, ‘I have come to know him,’ but does not obey his commandments, is a liar, and in such a person the truth does not exist” (1 John 2:4; see also 1 John 3:6). The issue is not pure sinlessness (1 John 1:10 says we make God a liar if we claim we are sinless), but the unrepentant persistence in sin. 35 years ago, I never thought I would find myself quoting James’ “Faith without works is dead” and insisting on repentance, but that’s because I never dreamed there would be such open rebellion against the will of Christ within the church.

“We are sanctified by the Holy Spirit and gifted for service.” Not without repentance! Sexual immorality “should not even be named among you” as an acceptable Christian form of behavior (Eph 5:3). The issue is not what we have done in our past, but whether it has stayed in our past, or remains part of our present lifestyle.

“LGBTQ persons have clearly demonstrated spiritual gifts for ministry.” So have many heterosexual offenders, whom we rightly exclude from ministry if they cannot desist from their behavior. Powerful preachers and teachers who are living in defiance of God’s revealed will are a threat to the peace, unity, and purity of the church.

“We call unclean what God calls clean.” Nowhere do the writers ever demonstrate that God calls same-sex intercourse clean.

“We are made a community of equals in Christ.” Equality is not the issue.

“Jesus is silent on homosexuality, and nowhere in the Bible are loving monogamous LGBTQ relationships dealt with at all.” False on both counts. Jesus says more about homosexuality than he does about the environment, health care, and numerous other issues. Aside from affirming the central teaching of the Torah on sexuality (quoted above), Jesus also names the sin of aselgeia on his sin list in Mark 7:22. Aselgeia is a term used by Jews for shocking violations of the sex laws of the Torah beyond adultery and fornication, and is likely to have been his term for homosexual behavior. The burden of proof is on those who claim that the Bible’s prohibitions of homosexual behavior do not deal with loving mutual LGBTQ behavior. The term Paul uses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy is a generic masculine noun, “he who has koitos with a male.” There is no indication that the act is not loving and mutual.

“Our first and most important ordination is baptism,” “The priesthood is composed of all believers,” “Exclusion LGBTQ of persons adds nothing of value to the ordination standards we already have.” What a watering-down of ordination into meaninglessness! It ignores Paul’s teachings in 1 Timothy and Titus about the necessity of leaders sending the right message by their manner of life to those they lead and to outsiders. One gets the impression that as long as one has a baptismal certificate, one’s manner of life, calling, and gifts are irrelevant. The writers state that “chastity in singleness” does not begin to address the social reality of the average American who starts having sex at 16 and does not marry until 28. Apparently the crowd and the Gallup Poll determine God’s truth, and if 60% of pastors seduce their parishioners, then God had better get rid of our outdated standards. Seriously, we know we will never stamp out domestic violence and substance abuse among our people, but we rightly allow zero tolerance for them, no matter how prevalent they may become.

“LGBTQ persons already serve in other denominations and organizations, proving dire predictions false every day.” This claim ignores what’s going on in the Anglican communion and the ELCA at the moment. Give it time. Unlike the UCC, we are a connectional church, therefore we have yet to see what will happen when we overturn our standards. And if the Bible is merely a book full of fairy tales, then yes, a church with LGBTQ leaders will not be much different from a church without them.

“No church that does not choose an LGBTQ minister, Elder, or Deacon will ever have to ordain one.” Nonsense! An empty, false promise if there ever was one. The movement for LGBTQ ordination is based on it being a fundamental issue of justice. Justice cannot allow injustice to coexist with it in the same house. The permission to ordain women, within 20 years became the requirement to ordain or else. Already the GA has voted to require local churches to pay for pension and medical benefits for gay partners, whether it violates local conscience or not. We know it will not stop there.

“The church is currently lending tacit support to mocking, bullying, torment, and exclusion suffered by LGBTQ persons.” The people who practice bullying do not care what we in the church think about homosexuality or the use of violence, and they do not bother to bully or torment those who fornicate, abuse alcohol or drugs, or commit domestic violence, all of which we also oppose. And I will not be surprised if someday, those who support LGBTQ ordination will support the mocking, bullying, torment, and exclusion of those who hold the historic viewpoint on sexuality.

Another Closeted Bigot

Meet George Alan Reker. He is a former professor, and a big time activist in anti-gay circles. He was on the founding board of the Family Research Council with James Dobson. He has been an "expert" witness in testimony before congress, an adviser to the White House, and in the Florida ban on gay adoption. He speaks all over the world on teen sexuality and "Gender Identity Disorder". He has of course said that the Bible is the infallible word of God and homosexuality is a sin. He is also a humongous hypocrite.

You see he recently returned from vacations to Europe and Bermuda with a young male prostitute called "Lucien" for the purposes of anonymity. He initially said he'd brought Lucien along to carry his luggage since he'd recently had surgery, but since he found Lucien on a site called Rentboys (NSFW) where he had to scroll through a number of pornographic images and videos to find a candidate several pages in advertised as having a "perfectly built 8 inch cock" and "up for anything" as long as you pay the thousands of dollars per day a boy from this site costs plus all travel expenses... that is a very expensive porter.

Mr. Reker later added that it was for evangelism purposes. In other words he, a 61 year old man, scanned through pages and pages of pornography to pick out a 20 year old male prostitute to pay thousands of dollars to go to exotic locations to... convert him.

Look, I don't care what Mr. Reker did or didn't do in those joint hotel rooms in Bermuda and Spain with Lucien. Reker can join the long list of bigoted hypocrites who have been exposed like Paul Cameron and Ted Haggard. No surprise really. These men believe against all evidence and common sense that homosexuality is a terrible disease which can be cured by lunatic methods. It is evident that they are themselves very sick.

No, what concerns me is the huge number of Christians who despite constant overwhelming evidence and the repeated blatant hypocrisy of their brightest lights and leaders will continue to regard organizations like NARTH as respectable and continue to peddle the same bull to the great harm of LGBT people everywhere, and the shame of Christians around the world.

What makes all of this more disgusting is that I will get told I am abandoning the gospel and ruining the church because I want gay people to be able to visit their loved ones in the hospital or dedicate their lives in service to Christ through ordained ministry, while people will make all sorts of excuses for those who want to be able to buy barely legal sex-workers a third their age, and snort crystal meth off of their chiseled abs.

Way

Over on Experimental Theology, Dr. Richard Beck has a concise rendering of the difference between Christianity = agreeing that certain propositions are true and Christianity = following Jesus as the Way, Truth and Life. I almost always find conservative Christians to be proposing the former and almost always find progressive (and emerging/emergent) and Christians to be proposing the latter.

If you've ever read anything I've ever written, you can probably guess where I stand.

Politics in Avatar

I am perhaps that last person in the country to see James Cameron's Avatar in 3D. I enjoyed it immensely. It was, in my opinion, a very good movie. No it was not as profound or subtle as Up In The Air, which I saw the same day, but it was a very different kind of movie. I went to be entertained, and boy was I, but I was also amazed, and transported. Avatar accomplishes exactly what it sets out to and that is high praise.

Some critics complained about the script. They're wrong. A movie like Avatar needs a simple workmanlike script. It wasn't dazzling dialogue, but dazzling dialogue would have gotten in the way of the immersive experience. Some critics complained about the acting. They're wrong. Like the script, the acting was serviceable. The actors needed to disappear behind the drama and the effects for this movie and they did that well without being wooden.

But more than these complaints I heard a bunch of complaints about the politics of the movie. Criticism hit Avatar from both the Left and the Right. The left didn't like the depiction of the Na'vi or the fact that they were 'saved' by a white man. The right didn't like the fact that humans were depicted as immoral colonialists. Both sides were straining out gnats to swallow camels in my opinion. There is something I would criticize about the movie, much bigger than either of those complaints. I'll deal with them in order.

Liberal Criticisms
I've heard Avatar compared to Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves every 30 seconds since the film came out. According to many liberals out there James Cameron is rehashing a tired Hollywood cliche about a white guy who "goes native" and then fights with the natives against his own people (see The Last Samurai). This cliche is insulting to indigenous peoples who are often portrayed stereotypically (even if the stereotype is a good one) and who, furthermore, don't need more white saviors - they've had quite enough thank you very much.

Basically this criticism is true. This is a Hollywood cliche and it is racist and demeaning. James Cameron does indulge in it to a certain extent as well.

But the criticism is way overblown in the case of Avatar. First, the movie is science fiction. These are not any historical indigenous people. They are similar to several cultures superficially, but also substantially different. There just isn't enough real substance here to make a clear and damning comparison. Secondly, the white savior in this case actually becomes a native, and saves the natives using their tools, their culture, their God. Third, and most importantly, James Cameron is a white guy. He can only make movies as a white guy, and I think this represents a pretty decent effort at moral imagination from a white perspective on issues of colonization and indigenous peoples. What we need are more filmmakers from indigenous cultures to tell their own story.

Conservative Criticisms
Avatar is full of hippy-environmentalist, anti-American, anti-military bullshit. The badguys in the movie are all military and corporate people. The good guys are scientists and naked blue people who are "in-touch with nature". They even use the phrase "shock and awe". It is just a bunch of your usual Hollywood liberal crap.

Again, I'll concede there is a level of basic truth here. Cameron does play into some stereotypes - the macho violent colonel, the calculating indifferent corporate executive, the awe-struck scientist. The overall message of the movie is in fact environmentalist and anti-violent hegemony.

But this criticism falls flat since in the context of the basic story Cameron is telling (a powerful colonial people fighting with a weaker indigenous people over a natural resource) real world analogies are abundant and overwhelmingly justify Cameron's portrayal. In fact, Cameron went easy on us colonialists. Besides the main character he puts a variety of sympathetic characters on the colonial side, not just the scientists either. There is the pilot who defects, and even the corporate executive is shown having moments of doubt. Frankly, if we were to just give a historical portrayal of similar situations like the Trail of Tears, we would have to search long and hard for any redeeming qualities in white-man.

The Real Problem With Avatar
If Conservatives are angry that Avatar portrays the violence of the humans as unjust, and Liberals are angry that Avatar portrays the Na'vi as needing a human to lead their just defense, both sides have missed the forest for the trees. The problem is that James Cameron couldn't imagine anything but a violent resolution to his story. The third act was always going to be a big guns and explosions set piece. We knew that from the beginning and the only thing conservatives and liberals are arguing about is whether one side or the other was portrayed fairly. Both agree that the violence was necessary and inevitable, they just want to see more nuance in the portrayal of their favored side.

This is the eternal myth of redemptive violence told in 3/4 of movies and books produced. In Avatar it is extremely explicit. The Goddess of the Na'vi "blesses" and even assists in the final military victory of the Na'vi. Salvation takes the form of a battle waged between good and evil. When the humans are shooting Na'vi we cringe. When the Na'vi shoot humans with javelin-sized arrows we cheer. It's that simple. Reverse this description and nothing of substance has changed, we merely tell the same story with a different protagonist and antagonist.

I can't wait for an epic science-fiction or fantasy movie where the possibility of peace is held out as a viable alternative. I suspect I'll be waiting a long time.

Conservatives Finally Declare Victory of Subjectivism

I'm not sure if you're heard of Conservapedia yet - it is the conservative encyclopedia created in contrast to Wikipedia, which, like the reality it seeks to describe, has a well-documented liberal bias. What I find most interesting about Conservapedia is that it flies in the face of every argument for objectivism I've ever heard.

It turns out that the best ideas don't in fact win out if you are a conservative. Consensual reality, as described by a community of mutually-critiquing peers, just isn't conservative enough. What you have to have are some ground rules to make sure that everyone experiences the right reality, describes it in the right way, and comes to the right conclusions.

This is a reality where Joseph McCarthy is a hero; where atheism is the result of moral depravity and all but guarantees mental health issues - not to mention a necessary tie to mass murder. It is a reality where Osama bin Laden is a prominent example of definitive Islam; where truly hilarious debates take place, like "How should Conservapedia avoid a conservative bias?" It is also where, in one paragraph, Reagan is described as the paragon of shrinking government as well as the progenitor of massive government dept and defense spending.

I wish any of this surprised me, but of course this worldview isn't hard to find. It is convenient, though, to have it all spelled out in one easy place.

Actually, as a side, I encourage you to play a game on Conservapedia called "Spot Osama bin Laden". He comes up in an amazing number of articles, speaking as an authority for the Muslim point of view. So far, I've found him mentioned prominently on Islam, the Crusades, and in Saudi Arabia as one of only two "notable Saudi Arabians".

See, what the victory of conservative ideas requires, apparently, is conservative control of how those ideas are investigated and expressed. It isn't enough to just sit down and talk it out, or have a huge, open wiki that can be edited by anyone and is subject to peer review at all times. That kind of thing is like the Bible - way too liberal for this crowd.

Maybe this is a first baby step, though, toward a wider world for some conservatives. It is clear that Conservapedia is a radical abandonment of objectivism of any kind. It is a total capitulation to subjectivism and a calculated attempt to control the type of subjectivity that will be allowed. It is a narrowing of reality and at the same time an admission of an infinitely broad one.

Reality isn't good enough, apparently. What we need is some conserveality.

Anyway, I encourage you to read some Conservapedia. It is like visiting an alien planet, both interesting and disturbing at the same time. Just remember, at any time, you can return to Earth for a breath of fresh air.

Two-Faced Monster

Conservative Christians in America say they condemn homosexuality because the Bible tells them to. They will be quick to tell you though that they love homosexuals and only want to see them led to a better way of life. Opposing Gay marriage, ordination, adoption, participation in the military, and all of that stuff is just loving behavior. They would not, for example, advocate the literal adherence to scriptural sentences of death. Would they?

The writers and signers of the Manhattan Declaration want you to believe that their anti-gay speech, anti-gay political stances, and anti-gay behavior is all innocuous "freedom of religion" stuff. The problem is that some of the same people who are presenting the dovish face of homophobia in the US are supporting the hawkish face of it elsewhere in the world.

The African nation of Uganda is on the verge of passing draconian new legislation that makes homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment. Something called "aggravated homosexuality", defined as any sexual contact between gays or lesbians where one or more of the parties has HIV, is punishable by death. Never mind that HIV in Africa is virtually exclusively a heterosexual problem.

This law is backed by a group calling itself "the Family". Major supporters of "the Family" include Anglican bishops Orombi and Akinola. Rev. Peter Akinola who is one of the primary signers of the Manhattan Declaration. Furthermore, a lot of money has been pouring into "the Family" from American evangelical churches - money which is being used to help get this law signed.

Some prominent members of the right in America have distanced themselves from their former allies in the African church over this. Rev. Rick Warren deserves some credit for saying he opposed the legislation and had cut off ties to friends of his who are behind it. Exodus International also wrote a letter saying mildly that the law is "unhelpful". Clearly there are some who see how the coincidence of these two movements is potentially detrimental to their cause in the US.

Here is the problem from my perspective - it appears that for some (I don't say all or even most), the "love the sinner/hate the sin" line is a facade. Some conservatives, among them prominent signers of the Manhattan Declaration, would probably support outright persecution of homosexuals if they thought it was politically viable in this country. I say this because they ARE supporting persecution of homosexuals in other countries where it is politically viable.

This is my question to conservatives who really believe this "love the sinner/hate the sin" stuff: is this what christianity looks like to you? Bishop Orombi believes all the things you say are fundamentals of the faith - virgin birth, Jesus' miracles, biblical inerrancy, bodily resurrection, substitutionary atonement, homosexuality is sin etc... Is he the kind of Christian you want to be? If so, count me out. I can't stomach the hypocrisy and hatred.

Follow Up On GOP Doctrinal "Resolution"

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama's "stimulus" bill;

This is hypocritical and false. Ronald Reagan and GW Bush both increased the national deficit by an order of magnitude, and between them was Clinton with his balanced budget. The only difference between the parties is that Republicans want a bloated Republican government and Democrats want a bloated Democratic government.

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

This is false. It is very clear that the Republican Party does not support any kind of meaningful health care reform. They also regularly engage in willful misrepresentation of plans put forward, making hypocritical claims about "death panels" and so on that would theoretically come from aspects of the plans which GW Bush himself also put forward - no "death panel" comments then of course.

Republicans were in power without real opposition in any branch of government for 6 arduous years, and no "market-based" or any other kind of reform was forthcoming. Just a steady swelling of health care costs and a steady shrinking of pockets.

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

Cap and trade is market-based. This one just doesn't make any sense. Unless by "market-based energy reforms" the GOP means "never denying an energy lobbyist anything s/he asks for and thanking them for massive campaign contributions" - because that is what the GOP actually does. Or we could ask politely that companies willingly reduce their bottom line so that we can have a cleaner environment. Let me know how well that works, and don't forget the fairy-dust.

(4) We support workers' right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

Ok, why not? I honestly don't know what "card check" is and have never heard this term before, but maybe I just wans't paying attention. I've mostly worked in places where we're not allowed to unionize and are fired if we attempt to do so.

Generally speaking, however, the GOP is certainly anti-union. Again, I think that their fairy-dust would be sufficient to protect workers' rights, and the Industrial Revolution taught us nothing if not how trustworthy factory owners are when they don't have to answer to an organized workforce.

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

Eh. I personally disagree with the characterization here, but this is at least consistent. The GOP would rather send people to prison for giving water to human beings in the desert.

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

This is hypocritical. Victory was already declared years ago, and to this day, victory has never been defined. As far as I can tell, victory is when Iraq becomes Texas. What the GOP in reality supports is a constant state of low-level warfare in other countries paired with ceaseless reminders of the threat of terrorism so that everyone will vote out of fear and xenophobia rather than wisdom and a clear assessment of who will solve our problems. Every GOP campaign is fear-based, whether it is fear of Commies or Hippies or gays or terrorists or Nazi-Commie-Muslims like Obama.

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

What I think the GOP actually wants is at least two or three enemies "on deck" - see number 6. We've also seen how "effective" containment of Iran and North Korea were under the Bush administration.

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

This one is obvious, and is consistent with their strong stances against equal rights for homosexuals. One might draw parallels with past social movements meeting conservative resistance.

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

This one drives me crazy, because I don't know what fantasy world the GOP lives in that it is not understood that health care is already rationed. The only difference is whether HMOs will ration it, in a situation where we have little or no choice who our health care provider actually is (I've never had one as an adult for example) or whether the government will ration it, and at least we can vote them out if we don't like it. Health care has to be rationed somehow because we don't have infinite medical resources. The difference is that the GOP thinks that for-profit companies will ration health care better than not-for-profit government programs. Of course, don't ask anyone on Medicare or Medicaid or MediCal or any other public assistance program, because they might not have health care at all if not for government intervention.

On the other hand, the stance against government funding of abortion makes sense. The GOP is right, people shouldn't have to have their tax dollars go to things they disagree with on moral grounds. I don't want my tax dollars to go to war, so I want the GOP to put forward a bill preventing government funding of the military. Oh no, wait, this one is hypocritical too. The GOP wants to serve it's "pro-life" base, but doesn't actually believe in any of that freedom of conscience stuff for anyone who disagrees with them on anything else.

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership;

We've certainly seen this, with people bringing automatic weapons to political rallies, and then wondering why the rest of us think they're nut-jobs. What's next, packing heat at the PTA meeting? Bringing your shotgun to church?

The Second Amendment existed before we had a standing, professional army, so that we would have armed militias to fight off the British or the Spanish. It also existed so that the federal government would never be able to militarily repress us. If Great Britain invades us, I'll happily eat my words. If the government turns on us violently, you and your Glock won't make a difference.

Meanwhile, handguns in your home are hundreds of times more likely to result in your childrens' death than in the death of an intruder or attacker. We also have one of the most murderous societies on earth, per capita, and US citizens own more than one fourth of all the firearms on Earth. I think gun control makes at least as much sense as water quality or worker safety regulations - which are also things that conservatives fight against.

***

Anyway, just throwing my hat in. I don't think these resolutions meaningfully represent what Republicans actually do, and I disagree with most of them personally, but it isn't like the GOP is losing a vote there in most cases. Also, to be clear for those who don't know, I'm not a Democrat either. They're just hard to criticize as strongly because they are so utterly spineless and so rarely undertake to do anything, much less stand up for their supposed core values. At least the Republicans can name a few, even though I disagree with how they come up with many and how they are applied.

I also just like to vent the old spleen now and then.

Commence telling me why I'm wrong!

Reagan's Unity Principle and The Five Fundamentals

There is currently a draft resolution circulating that would make the Republican National Committee adopt a list of 10 "conservative" principles and require any candidate seeking financial support to agree to at least 8 out of 10. This idea immediately brought to mind that sad event in Presbyterian history known as the Five Fundamentals. Here are the similarities as I see them:

1. In both instances it is a group of conservatives within a larger body seeking to make the entire body conform to their own understanding of core beliefs.
2. The "10 Principles" and "5 Fundamentals" are both lists designed to function as litmus tests for membership. The choice is subscription or exclusion.
3. Both of these lists are historically myopic - they are not actually representative of the tradition they claim to be expressing. The "10 Principles" would be unrecognizable to a conservative from 50 years ago, and the "5 Fundamentals" include oddities like the virgin birth, inerrancy, and substitutionary atonement, instead of the trinity, or the Golden Rule, or the communion of saints, or grace, or resurrection, or ... I don't know something actually important.
4. Neither of these lists represent accurate distillations of their tradition because they are occasioned, inspired, and utterly determined by opposition to specific contemporary issues rather than genuine timeless concerns. The "10 Principles" are a reaction to the defeat of the Republican party in the 2008 general election. The "5 Fundamentals" are a reaction to modernist thought becoming dominant in the church.
5. Both of these lists are the expression of a fearful minority, whose anxiety is sparked by a perceived loss of control. These lists are hubristic attempts to regain power and authority, but in actuality they will accomplish only the further alienation and isolation of that minority until it falls away from the main body entirely and sinks into irrelevance.

These similarities make me wonder what it is about the conservative psyche that clings to this mode of expression: "lists," "fundamentals," "core principles," whatever you want to call them. When conservatives feel threatened they buckle down and attempt to enforce group cohesion by ideological subscription. Why is that?

And what is the progressive equivalent? What do we do when our power is taken away from us and we see ourselves as an embattled minority? Doubtless our responses are just as fearful and futile, but I'm having a hard time thinking of what that looks like.

Presbyterians & The Manhattan Declaration

In other news, a bunch of people signed a piece of paper this morning called the Manhattan Declaration. It is a conservative Christian manifesto saying in essence that the signers won't cooperate with any laws supportive of gay marriage or abortion. Read Halden's piece I posted earlier for something I agree with. Read the Layman if you want to know why this declaration is good and pure and holy.

At least three Presbyterians were among the signers: Carmen Fowler (editor of the Layman), Dr. John H. Huffman Jr. (of St. Andrews Presbyterian Church in California), and Rev. Tim Keller (of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York). I don't know any of these individuals personally and so I will assume them to be people of impeccable character and virtue. This is not a comment about them as individuals.

I am curious, however, about how their theology interacts with their ideology. Most Presbyterians I have known who wade in conservative waters have been absolutely insistent about the primacy of a particular method of reading scripture in making moral judgments or constructing sound theology. They would find statements like the following to be highly problematic:

"We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person."

Setting scripture alongside reason and nature as means of knowing the truth about God's will seems to be a primary objection of Presbyterian conservatives I know to almost anything a progressive says or does. Read this article about Achtemeier on the Layman to see what I mean. Using feelings, experience, reason or observations from nature to arrive at the truth is inherently suspect from their perspective. So I wonder if the Presbyterians who signed the declaration, or those currently applauding it around my denomination, have considered the theology of this document closely.

I really do wonder, because the more I read it (I've been through the whole text 5 times now), the more convinced I am that there is almost no theology to be had here. Certainly not a sound Biblical grounding.

In their discussion of "Life" where is the biblical notion that to be gained it must be given away? Where is their commentary on war, militarism, poverty, prisons, or injustice? Can one even read the Bible in reference to "Life" and not touch on these matters?

In their discussion of "Marriage" why don't they even so much as mention the volumes that Jesus and Paul had to say on the subject? They once again commit the mistake of making marriage the foundational institution and thus subverting the place of the church.

And what on Earth does "Freedom of Religion" have to do with anything? Do they have such a stunted ecclesiology mired in the bankrupt ideology of christendom that they must receive their license to be religious from the state? Did they really say they refuse to render unto Caesar what belongs to God and then miss the irony in their own statement? Point me to that which doesn't belong to God.

There isn't anything to this declaration from a theological perspective at all. So what could be so attractive about it to conservatives in my denomination? I have a hunch that it isn't the theology. It's the ideology. I suspect they would agree with any document that was anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion regardless of the theology, exegesis, or community behind it. Because at the end of the day their theological commitments aren't as deep as they claim, but their ideological commitments are deeper than even they know.

Christianity: It's About Gay Sex and Abortion

Halden knocks it out of the park again. From Inhabitatio Dei:

Today saw the release of the “Manhattan Declaration,” a sort of ecumenical conservative manifesto with 148 signatories from Roman, Eastern, and Evangelical denominations. Its a consolidated statement of the usual stuff super conservative Christians care about — abortion, gay marriage, and well, I guess the freedom to not perform abortions and gay marriages, they call this religious freedom.

On the one hand there’s really nothing that needs to be said about this. After all there is nothing really said here that hasn’t been utterly clear for some time. We all know that abortion and gay marriage, framed under the language of religious freedom are pretty much all the Christian political right cares about.

Naturally in the long tirades about a holistic ethic of life there’s no substantial discussion of poverty, let alone militarism and war. Likewise in the flowing praises of marriage as the bedrock of civilization and Christianity don’t see fit to mention any of the things Jesus or Paul actually had to say about marriage. This is standard sub-biblical conservative fare.

This is also precisely why stuff like this shouldn’t be considered a manifesto in any realistic sense of the term. The document styles itself as standing in the line of Barmen and even MLK’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. This is bullshit. Its simply a consolidation of widely-held conservative opinion. Hell, they even claim that their views represent the majority of Americans while they style it as a bold sort of minority courage against the powers that be. That’s the best thing about popular conservative Christianity. You can be an oppressed minority while still really representing pretty much all the real people.

Its actually painfully obvious what this is all about. Its simply another instance of the conservative Christian unrest that always gets shrilly trumpeted whenever there’s a democrat in the White House. As such this is actually a perfect example of the sort of anxiety I discussed yesterday. What animates this document is nothing more — and I really mean that, quite literally nothing more – than a gnawing fear about not being in a position of cultural power.

We are offered here a vision of Christianity completely and intentionally sold over to ideology. There is no proclamation of the living God, of the crucified and risen Christ here. All we are offered by this document and the movement it represents is a life ruled by the very powers Christ has freed us from. The desperation for control, domination, and security that this movement needs to be called what it is, a falling back into the elemental spirits of the cosmos, a return to the world system that Christ’s death and resurrection has made nothing. It is nothing less than the rejection of actual faith in the coming kingdom of the living God.

30 Republicans Come Out In Support of Rape

I just needed to post on this because it was so disgusting and, even for a cynical person like me who so often assumes the worst, it was still surprising. Apparently, 3/4 of the Senate Republicans are, to put it blankly, in favor of U.S. contractors writing fine print into their own contracts preventing rape victims from suing them.

These august Senators, in their wisdom, think that arbitration is probably the better way to go.

From the article I linked below:

Makes sense — after all, it's really important for rape victims and the companies that hold them in locked shipping containers while disposing of evidence come to an amicable settlement in a friendly, non-litigious atmosphere. Bonus points if that atmosphere is controlled by the company, as opposed to an impartial court. Because since outsourcing the Iraq war to Halliburton worked so well, we might as well outsource the settlement of rape claims to them too.

Read the story for yourself.

As is often the case, Jon Stewart is the moral voice here.

In case you are a voter, here are the names of the Republican Senators who voted against legal rights for a woman who was gang-raped and then locked in a shipping container by employees of a U.S. contractor who is receiving billions of dollars of tax money.

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

I wonder if any of these...people...have daughters? Or children at all?

I wonder, if their daughter (or son) was gang-raped and locked in a shipping container while evidence was destroyed, whether they would feel that arbitration would be the right way to go.

Well done, Senate Republicans. I didn't think I could still be desensitized.

Conservatizing the Bible

Because the Bible has a well known liberal bias.

A project to authorize a completely conservative translation of the Bible is underway. Their goals include removing later liberal additions, emphasizing the "Free-market parables", and ensuring the hyper-masculinity of the text. I love people like this. They completely remove my need to create straw-men.

I'm curious though, will they rely on the past two centuries of liberal scholarship that has constructed the annotated hebrew and greek manuscripts now universally regarded as the best available source material? Maybe as true conservatives they should use the Vulgate and then they can just write a New King James Version. Oh wait, that already exists.

Important Countercultural Prohibitions

According to Christian...

	...Progressives	...Conservatives
	No Killing	No Fornication
	No Torture	No Gays
	No Hoarding Wealth	No Dancing
	No Exploiting the Poor	No Drinking
	No Racism/Sexism/ Ageism/Homophobia	No Abortion No Cussing

Ok UK, We Hear You

In a mere 2 days, 115,738 citizens of the UK have felt the need to clarify their feelings about their national healthcare system, so maligned by conservative worshipers of insurance companies.

I'm not sure how far this petition will go - I imagine it'll lose steam at some point. It's just another little piece of evidence that Republicans are using a number of tactics, including lying, to convince us that 37th in the world for health care is acceptable for the wealthiest and most powerful nation ever to exist.

Granted, there are a few out there who are offering actual solutions rather than screaming and guns, but they don't seem to be the majority in our popular culture right now. And I've established that I am not an Obama worshiper myself, and I can list some imperfections of Obamacare, but if my options are 1) screaming lunatics who bring AR-15s to town hall meetings supported by insurance-company funded Republicans and 2) the 37th health care system in the world for the highest price in the world or 3) Obamacare...well, that's an easy choice. I wish I had better options, but that's what's in front of me.

Oh, and denouncing Obama's "death panels" when they were first put forward by George W. Bush a few years ago and went basically unmentioned? Still incredibly hypocritical, even if you pretend that "death panel" has anything to do with the legislation being considered.

Hold On A Minute

Let me get this straight, conservatives.

If someone is unwilling to sign a Republican loyalty oath, they aren't allowed into a RNC rally...But its fine if someone brings a loaded AR-15 to an Obama rally.

And Obama is the fascist!?

Here's another one. If Republicans try to pass end-of-life consulting panels in 2003, no big deal, but when Obama does the EXACT SAME THING, they are death-panels, and again, Obama is the fascist.

I can only come to a few conclusions.

1. Sarah Palin and her "death panel" ilk have no memory of any events preceding 2005, kind of like the reverse of the guy from Memento...(and they also lack YouTube, the Daily Show, Google or TiVo)

2. Republicans are aware of their own spittle-flecked hypocrisy and are having a good laugh at the expense of the rest of us...(and nice one guys, but this has gone on a little long)

3. I have finally snapped...

4. Or we are all trying to have a debate with inanimate objects.

I try very hard to grant the benefit of the doubt, but on this current health-care "debate", I just can't. I'm sure there are reasonable conservatives out there, but I wish they were louder.

Has the Right Gone Crazy?

"Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders--he called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we're going to call ours," - a spokesman for the Patients First bus tour, fighting healthcare reform.

Okay, I admit that the question in the post title is rhetorical. The Right has been crazy for a long time.

But there seems to be an uptick in loopiness lately. A surge of insanity. A new benchmark for bonkers.

Protesting healthcare reform, the right has decided to connect it to fascism. Rush Limbaugh has been comparing Obama to Hitler all week. The townhall protests taking place are rife with swastikas and clever posters of Obama with a Charlie Chaplin 'stache. I'd go through a list of reasons why this comparison makes no sense, but it is such a complete non sequitor, so totally out of left field (right field?), that there is really no way to break it down into reasonable chunks.

For a long time I've felt like conservatives were living in opposite land, where supporting rights for minorities makes you a racist. Where not wanting palestinian homes to be run over by tanks makes you an anti-semite. Where desiring children and poor people to have access to doctors makes you a thief and (apparently) a fascist.

What I think is happening is effectively this: progressives have won the ideological war. In a profound way conservatives have been forced to incorporate into their own world view fundamental progressive truths like "racism is bad." Having accepted these truths, but still not wanting to be associated with progressives they impotently hurl insults at progressives inadvertently inverting the meaning of the words they are using as they do. Fundamentally, they know that Hitler was a bad man and they are angry at Obama so they compare Obama to Hitler, but there is no comprehension there. No actual awareness of why Hitler was so bad.

This is profound cognitive dissonance at work. They've accepted that the ideologies of conservatism are evil, without wanting to cease to identify as conservatives. So the new way to insult a liberal is to call him or her a conservative. Take that!

Sarah Palin: Quiviter?

Here's an interesting op-ed article about Sarah Palin. Since she's the heir apparent of the Republican party, maybe it's germane and maybe it isn't.

We report. You decide :)

For the other side, I suppose you can check here.

Picking Sides: Invoking Jesus

Christians love to remake Jesus in their own image. It is our favorite pastime. Thus conservatives believe Jesus is a good ol' boy, blessing the nation state, preaching charity (not socialism!), and threatening hellfire and damnation for all those who have sex standing up because, as the old saw goes, it might lead to dancing! Liberals meanwhile imagine a tofu-eating, guitar-playing, peace-loving hippie with a poet's soul and a soft heart for prostitutes.

Both are obvious caricatures. Anyone who tells you they know exactly who Jesus is, and then proceeds to describe a guy just like themselves but with a beard and more gravitas, is a nincompoop. That's right I called you a nincompoop! What are you gonna do about it?

Our mental images of Jesus are idols, every single one of them. No one has a perfectly accurate understanding of this man who is by definition always beyond our comprehension. Still, is there nothing we can say about this image war between liberal and conservative Christians? Is it a hopeless stalemate?

No, I think there is a definitive fact, an aspect of the gospel story, which resolves the dilemma in favor of the liberal side: Jesus was crucified. He wasn't killed by a populist assassin for siding with the establishment. He was tried and convicted by the state at the urging of the religious elite, and he was executed as a rebel. No matter how you spin the story, no matter what you believe the content of his message was - it has to make conservatives uncomfortable that he was killed by the conservatives of his day.

Given that one fact, when invoking Jesus in present day disputes, we should never take seriously the idea that Jesus would side with the establishment. I don't imagine for a second that Jesus is in facile agreement with everything liberal Americans believe - especially where liberals are embedded in the status quo. But, if liberalism remembers its populist-reformist roots, it is far more likely that Jesus is to be found standing in a picket line, than sitting in a board room.

That should make conservatives very uncomfortable indeed, because conservatism is about reaching into the past to resist change in the present, for the sake of protecting one's own stake in the status quo. It is an ideology which cannot cope with the world-overturning kingdom theology of a crucified and risen Jesus Christ.

So, in addition to the track record of liberalism actually improving our society morally, there is another reason to be proud of being a liberal: Jesus is one.

Picking Sides: Track Records

As a typical wishy-washy progressive I have a lot of sympathy for the "can't we all just get along," "we're all on the same team," kind of thinking. I get the appeal of "middle-way," "moderate," some might call it "fence-sitting" rhetoric. Even more, I appreciate attempts to forge a third path through the wilderness that is not on this tired spectrum. At times I actually genuinely hold a strong opinion that would be difficult to classify as Liberal or Conservative, but then no one is a complete caricature.

Furthermore, I reject the truth of binary generalizations and question the utility of labels so historically flexible as to mean exactly the opposite thing in different times and places. You can't put me in a box! Dammit!

But isn't the very fact that I feel the need to put so many qualifiers at the start of this post sufficient evidence of which box I belong in? (Hint: it isn't the one with the Nazi.) One thing that really annoys me is the apparent need of many liberals to disavow their liberalism. So this post is about one very good reason, among many, to be proud of being a liberal. It's about track records.

In current debates framed in binary liberal vs. conservative terms there are strong arguments and even more passion on both sides. If an impartial observer wanted to determine which side was right, one reasonable strategy would be to analyze similar debates through history and see which side had more often been vindicated.

Here are some examples:

Slavery - Liberals win. Slavery is bad.
Suffrage - Liberals win. Women can vote.
Civil Rights - Liberals win. Segregation ends.

Who would want to defend the historical conservative position on any of these issues now? Contemporary conservatives certainly don't, because they have conceded that liberals were right in those instances. What makes them so certain that liberals are now wrong?

Not every battle has a clear cut conclusion, but can anyone name a major social issue that conservatives have won - by which I mean their moral vision has been vindicated as the correct one by society in retrospect?

The track record of liberalism certainly isn't without blemish. Liberals have started wars and profited at the expense of the poor. I am just as cynical of liberal politicians as any other, but if we're evaluating the quality of an idea in comparison to its competitors liberalism comes out looking pretty good. There are many thoughtful, wise, good conservatives, but that doesn't change the fact that as an ideology it is also a refuge for racists, mysoginists, and fascists.

What I will never understand is how being a "liberal" has come to be something to be ashamed of, whereas belonging to the same ideological milieux as Machiavelli, Rasputin and Cheney, is a source of pride.

Rick Warren Again

Since we've talked about Rick Warren in the past, and I saw this article today, I thought I'd post it. I think its interesting, and obviously (?) I like it when Warren breaks with his conservative cohorts.

I liked this quote of Warren's:

"It's easier to be an extremist of any kind because then you only have one group of people mad at you," he said. "But if you actually try to build relationships — like invite an evangelical pastor to your gathering — you'll get criticized for it. So will I."

That's a trenchant point I think. If you are an extremist and draw Us/Them lines in the sand, the main ones tho will be mad at you will be the Them. But whenever someone actually tries to make peace and build bridges and forge relationships, they risk both sides, the Us and the Them, being angry at them.