Let's Not Try to Pretty-up the Bible

Although I will comment on timely issues that affect the LGBT community, mostly I flatter myself by contributing what might be called (at least by some) "think pieces." These are efforts to reframe or clarify issues of importance. By providing a different angle or detecting a nuance, we might be able to rethink a formerly held belief or position. At the very least, I hope to generate comments from other thinkers for our mutual benefit. Today's post is a case in point.

Ever since translating the Bible began, from the Septuagint to modern translations, translators have obscured certain passages for a variety of reasons. Euphemisms abound. In the Hebrew Bible, the penis is referred to as "thigh," and of course, we're all familiar with "knew" as the substitute for sexual intercourse. In the New Testament, you'd never know that menstrual rags or castration are meant by "filthy rags"(Isa. 64:6) and "I would they were even cut off which trouble you." (Gal. 5:12)  The NRSV actually says, "castrate themselves."

There has always been a sensitivity by translators to tone down for propriety sake the very earthy parts of the Bible. But when it comes to actually changing the meaning of the texts, I will protest.

Inclusive language, that is, the intentional use of "gender neutral" language, has generally been around since the 1960s. It first showed up in the churches as efforts to take the masculine meaning away from the concept of God. So instead of "God, when he...," for example, we hear "God, when God...," and the like. This is a very important move as we know that 1) God has no gender, and 2) worlds of meaning are created by words. The world created by "God, he..." easily became a world in which the male is elevated over the female. I am all for the use of gender neutral terms for God in all church settings including sermons, liturgies, and conversations. But when it comes to inclusive language in Bible translations, I must object.

Inclusive language efforts try to take the offending aspects of gender and neutralize them. This goes beyond pronouns for God and includes "Parent" for "Father", substituting "members" for "brothers" when the entire congregation is meant, "they" replaces "he or she," and the like.

Certainly this is a wholesome effort, but it actually makes the Bible less understandable and much less useful. How can that be?

Since these efforts generally come out of the more progressive side of the church, the interest goes much farther than merely inclusive language. They recognize that Jesus' message of a God of love often gets lost in the mix of competing images. So they go about "helping" the Bible represent good theology. We'll see how the Inclusive Bible does this in a moment, but first here's 1 Corinthians 14:34-35: (New American Standard Version)

The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (NASV)

I chose the NASV here because it is a well-known word-for-word translation to the point of being wooden. Anyone reading these verses would come face to face with biblical patriarchy (the family/state system of male dominance and subjection of women). Patriarchy is a biblical fact that runs "from cover to cover." Occasionally there is pushback such as Galatians 3:28, yet patriarchy is the dominate setting. Elders and deacons must be the husbands of one wife, making women ineligible to hold church offices in the "Pastoral Epistles." When the original 12 disciples had to replace Judas, the qualifications made sure a man was chosen. On and on we could go, but you know all this.

So, in an effort to combat the patriarchy of the Bible,and especially its negativity toward women, the Inclusive Bible takes it head on. Here's their translation of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

Only one spouse has permission to speak. The other is to remain silent, to keep in the background out of respect, and to wait his or her turn.

Surely this is the way we wish the Bible really had it, but it isn't. This is not how the original audience heard this text. Paul explicitly demands that women remain silent in church; this says exactly the opposite  Even though the original sense offends many modern sensibilities, it's the real Bible. The Inclusive Bible is merely wishful thinking. Unfortunately, most of the recent translations offend in this regard to one degree or another. The intention is honorable, but the result is devastating to biblical understanding.

Perhaps a couple more illustrations of how some translations obscure troublesome passages would be helpful. Here's Matthew 18:15-17 from the New Revised Standard Version:

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (NRSV)

"Member" here is literally, "brother." "Member" suggests that Matthew's church made no distinctions in disciplining males and females. This is, of course, how many would like for the church to conduct itself in all things. However, "brother" displays the actual situation where men stand in judgment of men. The disciplining of women fell to their fathers, husbands or brothers. But all of this is lost in the cleaned up version.

One more. One of the arguments that literalists make to oppose the Theory of Evolution is that Genesis 1 uses a phrase meaning reproduction is "after their kind," which is correctly translated. They take this to mean that all the species were created at once and that there could be no evolving of one into another. (Which, by the way, segregationist used "after their own kind" to argue that the races shouldn't intermarry.) So the NRSV translates it as "of every kind," which opens the door for natural selection.

We don't want to leave people with the impression that the Bible is not a worthy companion to help us find God and lead worthy lives. But we do want to warn that reading the Bible is not an easy thing, like reading the morning newspaper. We must learn to differentiate between the culturally derived aspects of the Bible that made sense in that day, but no longer makes sense for us. Someone once said that reading the Bible is like eating watermelon: you have to spit out a few seeds along the way.

When Paul said to "greet one another with a holy kiss," it's perfectly fine to give a hug or handshake today, instead. When in their culture women were subordinated, they are now free in ours. We are living into Paul's inclusive vision of Galatians 3:28 that

There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 

So, let's not try to pretty-up the Bible.

First, it's always better to deal with reality than what we would prefer reality to be. Sweeping the problems of the Bible under the rug accomplishes nothing. If you think that cleaning up the offending passages will cure literalists from enforcing patriarchy in their churches, think again. There will always be the King James Version.

Second, if we don't know that the Bible encourages patriarchy, tolerates slavery, subordinates women, and generally represents an outdated worldview, scientifically and otherwise, we lose the fact that it is the product of human beings. Yes, human beings who wrestled with what it means to be human in the presence of the Divine, but human nevertheless. That we can stand in judgment over the Bible comes from listening to all of it, warts and all, and learning to pick the wheat from the chaff. It doesn't take much to see that the "inerrant Bible" is a fiction, but not if it's cleaned up before we get there.

Third, the answer to the problem is not rewriting the Bible, it's in doing good theology. Perhaps knowing that even the original didn't always get it right will help us to understand our human attempts are also fraught with error and subject to revision as others look over our shoulders and make our paths straighter.

So let's live with the Bible as its authors intended. We can handle the seeds just fine.

What the Bible Really Says: NOTHING

(Okay, I cribbed this from my book. Maybe this will make you want to read more of it. 

Just click on the book's cover on the left of the page and you will find it on Amazon.)

The ultimate recourse for those who want to keep homosexuality on the sins list is, “My Bible says....” The sentence generally ends with “...homosexuals are an abomination,” or, “...gays are going to hell,” or “…God hates gays.” This is intended to be the final word on the matter; the Bible has spoken, the issue is clear, we can move on to other things. How so? Because the Bible has spoken.

The Bible, of course says no such thing and I will prove it to you. Go get your Bible. (Yes, really--go get it.) Now, take it in your hands and bring it up to your eyes. Say to it very clearly, “Bible, tell me, what do you have to say about homosexuality?” If you don't hear anything, repeat your question; maybe louder this time. If there is still no answer, shake it; it may be taking a nap. Still hearing nothing? Well, that's all right, because if you do hear the Bible answering you may be on your way to a psychiatric hospital.

The Bible “says” nothing. It is an inert object, words on paper. It can’t utter a sound. Of course, you knew that all along, yet you may still want to repeat that the Bible says something. What is really going on is that people say the Bible says something; people speak on behalf of  the Bible. The Bible is deaf and mute.

Unfortunately, people too often make what “the Bible says” what they want it to say. You see, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted reading of anything, from the daily newspaper to the Bible. All of us read (or “hear what it says”) though a filter or a lens. No one can read without one. Your filter/lens is everything that you have learned through your culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, education...you get the point...that shapes how you perceive meaning. Every word you read or hear is processed through this filtering system. Everyone reads or hears the same word or words differently. Depending on how far apart our systems are, we can basically understand each other or totally misunderstand. In explaining this to an adult Sunday School class, one member said, “I can think of something we both read that needs no filtering, that is straightforward and immediately understood.” “Okay,” I said. “Let's have it.” He responded, “God is love.” I replied with, “What do you mean by 'God' and what do you mean by 'love'”? He got my point.

When it comes to reading the Bible, we have a two to three thousand year old bridge to cross. We need to be able to “hear” as though we were an immediate member of the culture of those ancients who created those biblical words. This is virtually impossible. The best we can do is approximate this; we will never actually achieve this. And even for those who were contemporaries, they had their own problems. Here's Peter’s comment on Paul's letters: “There are some things in them hard to understand.” (2 Peter 2:16) Indeed.

So the next time you are tempted to tell someone what the Bible says, why not be honest and tell them that you think this is what the Bible, properly interpreted, means. You will have achieved two things. First, you will have admitted that your interpretation is open to opinion (and that it is your opinion), and that you might be, dare I say it...wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Equality-Same-sex-marriage-church/dp/1484967127/ref=

for those of you reading this post by email

Steve Kindle

www.clergyunited.org

info@clergyunited.org

Biblical Ambiguity Is Our Friend

One of the findings of Bible publishing marketers is that people don’t actually read the Bible. Any pastor can verify that. America is biblically illiterate. Try as they might, their initial attempts to read it are met with elaborate argumentation (Romans), boredom (Leviticus), or the bizarre (Revelation). Some just stick to the tried and true (Psalms, Sermon on the Mount, John 3:16), or simply flip to a random passage and hope for a blessing. Most just give up altogether. But even though they no longer study the Bible, people think they should own one, which is the edge these marketers are exploiting.

Let’s face it, reading the Bible is not easy. It’s not arranged in a way that logically unfolds it meanings. We have to master biblical timelines, grapple with differing genres that require differing modes of interpretation, decipher unfamiliar practices, and try to understand foreign cultures and peoples. Add to this that the King James Version’s Elizabethan English is increasingly foreign territory to modern Americans, but still remains the bestselling Bible. Then there is the nagging problem of ambiguities in the text. We don’t like them.

Have you noticed that most of the translations in the last 25 years focus on “readability”? It’s a given that the Bible is just too complicated to let it remain complicated. So our beneficent translators set about to make the Bible understandable. Today a prospective purchaser has over 30 English translations to choose among.

Then there’s the “value added” Bibles that are marketed to specific demographics to solve their unique problems that the plain Bible can’t seem to provide. Here’s a great example of one directed to men (and it appears, manly men). The publisher writes:

Every Man's Bible: A Bible for Every Battle Every Man Faces

Finally, a Bible that every ordinary guy—from truck drivers to lawyers—can call his own.  This is a guy's type of Bible—straight talk about the challenges of life.  Notes cover everything from work issues to relationships with women to common temptations guys face....Whether on your dashboard or on your desk, you'll want to keep the Every Man's Bible close at hand.  It gives you real answers, real fast.

No demographic goes without its own specific issues resolved. There are study Bibles for teens, women, the addicted, athletes, minorities, college kids, defenders of the faith, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, Liberals, children, and many, many more. All promise "real answers, real fast." Just what the doctor ordered. In this case, is it Dr. Faust?

People who depend on this approach to biblical understanding are exchanging their own search for personal truth for the tidy explanations that someone else delivers in a palatable package. They claim to make sense out of that confusing Bible for you. The end result is that people think they are getting biblical truth when, in fact, they are simply served up someone else's opinion. And they are still not reading the Bible. They are reading the sidebars, tables, charts, and "How to apply this to your life" explanations, but rarely the Bible. It's perfect for Americans who have lost patience with patience.

Biblical ambiguities are our friend. There is no need to explain them away. For when we do so, we lose touch with a necessary aspect of biblical and lived life. Not everything is easy, or immediately available. Often the explanations involved that "clear up" ambiguities are nothing more than veiled attempts to force theological or ideological opinions in the name of "Thus saith the Lord."  I will provide just one example.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is a notoriously difficult passage to translate.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. (NRSV emphasis mine)

In an earlier post I dealt with the anachronism involved with"sodomites," a word not invented until 1000 years after the Corinthian letter was written. Nevertheless, some of the more recent translators are not content to let stand the ambiguity of just what or who these people, male prostitutes and sodomites, are. So this is how they clear it up, from the Common English Version:

Don’t you know that people who are unjust won’t inherit God’s kingdom? Don’t be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse, thieves, the greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers won’t inherit God’s kingdom. (emphasis mine)

There is a perfectly fine translation alternative to this speculation that now serves as a proof-text against homosexuality. "Male prostitutes and sodomites" can easily be translated "male temple prostitutes and those who use them." The ambiguity inherent in this and other passages forces us to dig deep into the biblical text for our answers. It reminds us that all our findings are of our own making and subject to all the restrictions and restraints humanity must bear. We are finite beings only touching the hem of the garment of absolute truth. To pretend otherwise is to dishonor not only the Bible, but the God who created ambiguity in the first place, to make us searchers after God, not imprisoners of the Divine Truth. Ambiguity is our friend; it keeps us human.

Steve Kindle
www.clergyunited.org
info@clergyunited.org

Dr. King’s Beloved Community Is Incomplete

As we celebrate the life of one of America's most important figures today, it is incumbent upon us to honor not only the achievements of the man, but also the vision he set before us. The question we need to ask ourselves is this: Are we living into the world Dr. King had in mind and even gave his life to make possible?

The centerpiece of his vision he called the Beloved Community. It's not a stretch to compare it with Jesus' notion of the Kingdom of God, as both call for a community in which each participant lives for the well-being of the others. It is a community that has only one guiding rule, the Golden Rule, and one pursuit, love in action. In his most famous speech, "I Have a Dream," Dr. King set out to close the gap between our rhetoric and our deeds. He said, “I say to you my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream.  It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.”

Those of us who honor Dr. King and hold out the hope for one day realizing his dream surely recognize that the gap between America's words and deeds is yet to be closed. Although racism is still a factor in America, it is no longer privileged in polite society. Homophobia, on the other hand is, in the words of Harvard's Byrne Fone, "The last respectable bigotry in America."

Coretta Scott King, the widow of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., often said that, were he alive today, Dr. King would be working for LGBT equality. I personally heard her say much the same thing during a fund raising event in San Francisco shortly before she died. This begs a very fundamental question: How could she be so sure?

Let’s face it; the African American community lags way behind the rest of America in support of LGBT equality. Even though most of black clergy are solidly behind the Civil Rights Movement, they oppose gay equality. However, many prominent African American leaders are on record supporting it, including the Reverends Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton, and Rep. John Lewis.

Although the 1950s and 60s were not brimming with gay rights issues, Dr. King’s most trusted confidant and strategic thinker, Bayard Rustin, was gay, and this was known to King and his inner circle (to say nothing about J. Edgar Hoover and his smear campaign). It is inconceivable that he and Coretta did not have conversations about Bayard, and it is known that King felt his homosexuality should be a non-issue.

However, I believe Dr. King’s certain involvement in gay rights today was based solidly on bedrock beliefs he held which would have naturally led him to this position.

To begin with, Dr. King understood that oppression is oppression is oppression.  That is, all oppression is of one kind and needs to be opposed whenever and wherever it is found. It has always confounded me that black leaders who understand their own oppression aren’t able to transfer it to others who are oppressed. Some think that this is because they feel that focusing on other issues diffuse and diminish their struggle. Others, such as the African American author Keith Boykin in his “One More River to Cross,” points to the general homophobia in the black community. Dr. King did not make this mistake.

Dr. King was an early postmodernist. He understood that all things are connected and rise and fall together. This is seen in one of his most famous utterances: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He further elaborated by saying,

It really boils down to this: that all life is interrelated.  We are all caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.   

Unless all things are connected to each other, this could not be true. It doesn't take much in the way of connecting the dots to go from civil rights to gay rights.

Mel White, the co-founder of Soulforce, who looks to Dr. King's nonviolent philosophy to guide his work, insists that the enemy of injustice is not a person or a people, but ignorance. That the dignity of those who would oppose justice for all people must be acknowledged and upheld at all times. You see, when you love your enemy, you no longer have an enemy.  Dr King said that the pursuit of justice "is reconciliation, the end is redemption, the end is the creation of the Beloved Community.  It is this type of spirit, and this type of love that can transform opposers into friend....It is this love that will bring about miracles in the hearts of men.”

There is certainly much work yet to be done to complete Dr. King’s dream of the Beloved Community, and today should be a forthright call to remind ourselves of this. To ignore Dr. King’s commitment to removing all injustices, particularly the incomplete pursuit of gay rights, is not only to misunderstand that great man, but to dishonor his commitment of gaining justice for all.

Utah: American Bellwether?

A bellwether is one that serves as a leader or is a leading indicator of future trends. Wikipedia cites its origin: "The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) leading his flock of sheep. The movements of the flock could be noted by hearing the bell before the flock was in sight." Much attention is given to Ottawa County, Indiana every four years because it has predicted the outcome of every presidential race since 1964. As it goes, so goes the nation. California has the reputation for leading the country in innovative trends, from new fads to technological breakthroughs. Colorado may be taking that distinction away from it by being the first state to allow recreational marijuana use. 

A new poll in Utah, conducted by its leading newspaper, The Salt Lake Tribune, suggests that America is fully ready to embrace LGBT equality. In a state whose majority population (58%)  is Latter Day Saints (Mormans), the poll found it is evenly divided between 48% who favor granting same-sex marriage licenses and 48% who oppose it. It is clear that its decade old state ban on same-sex marriage would now likely be defeated if offered a vote. (A similar reality now obtains in California.) This is remarkable in that the LDS church is the leading voice against LGBT equality, and aggressively inserts itself and its money all across the nation to defeat pro-gay advances. Nevertheless, Utah is about to cave. I see this as a leading indicator that not only is same-sex marriage inevitable, it's coming more quickly than anyone ever imagined. 

Fully 72% favor civil unions for same-sex couples. Before Colorado made recreational use of marijuana legal, it first decriminalized it and allowed for medical use. Medical use is the gateway to decriminalization and decriminalization is the gateway to legalization. Similarly, the presence of same-sex civil unions leads to legalizing same-sex marriage. People eventually see the inherent inequality in civil unions, as LGBTs are obviously discriminated against in plain sight. Also the increased visibility of gays and lesbians in everyday situations soon breaks down the pejorative stereotypes and are welcomed as normal and entitled to the same rights as everyone else. 

This poll also puts to bed the unsupported but widespread belief that people don't change. Yes they do. In fact, 36% admitted that their views changed over time. So there is hope, nay, solid evidence that the future is bright, and not so distant after all.

The Problem with an Infallible Bible: You're Not!

The late Harold Lindsell, a prominent Evangelical leader, stated that, "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective". (The Battle for the Bible. Zondervan, 1978, p.31)  The key phrase, "it cannot deceive us," is the source of the problem. Couple this with biblical literalism and the problem is compounded. For those who believe in infallibility and literalism believe they can read it essentially without error. "The Bible cannot deceive me; therefore, I am not deceived."

You may have wondered why conservative Christians (mostly the leaders) are so sure of themselves. Well, this is part of the explanation. "I understand (literally) what the Bible says, so I have every right to conclude that it is the truth, and those who disagree with me are wrong."  Wrong, even though they come from the same two understandings and approach the Bible the same way. Those who don't come from the same a priori starting point are wrong by definition.

Simply put, the problem with an infallible Bible is that for it to have any value, you need to be an infallible reader. Many have tried to wear the mantle of (practical) infallibility and crown their hubris by consigning to hell (in the most excessive examples) those who would disagree. The Roman Catholic Church relies on an infallible pope, although papal infallibility has been used only once since it was proclaimed in 1870 to make the Assumption of Mary into heaven an Article of faith.

The notion of Absolute Truth is also subject to the same problem of identifying just what it is. Since we are all, as humans, finite beings, we cannot comprehend Absolute Truth. We can only approach it. The absolute cannot dwell in the finite. This is not to say there is no Absolute Truth; only that it is not a helpful notion so long as we think knowing it is possible. So approaching the biblical text must be done in great humility, our conclusions must be open to adjustment at all times, and our openness to other points of view must be observed with respectful consideration. You may not end up with The Truth, but you will be practicing Christian charity. And that's a pathway to a more expansive understanding of the Bible than thinking you have already arrived will ever take you.

Why Toleration Must not Be Tolerated

So often we hear, “We need to be a more tolerant world…nation…church...people, etc.” It’s certainly said with the best of intentions: a desire for people to get along better, to understand one another better, and to reach out beyond our limited perspectives. Yet it harbors within it the seeds of its own inability to transcend differences and unite with the “others” among us.

First of all, who are the “we” who need to be more tolerant? Simply and starkly put, those with the power to offer or deny a place at the table. In other words, it’s the oppressors, the guardians of the status quo, the gatekeepers of who’s in and who’s out. Toleration at its base is just another form of discrimination: the tolerant only “tolerate” inferiors. Therefore, toleration is a political tool and as such is used by the powerful in service or disservice of the less powerful.

Toleration can only be practiced by those who have the power to rescind it. Toleration asks, “How much can I put up with until I finally reject you?” The tolerater, whether an individual or a society, sets the rules and determines the outcome. History is replete with examples. Rome tolerated Jews and then Christians until they could no longer tolerate them. Gypsies, as with the Jews, have been repeatedly tolerated, then expelled, throughout their history. Minorities everywhere live with the reality that their tolerated status (when they have it) is on loan and they must act accordingly.

Toleration can have a positive function, as a sort of way station on the way to true equality and acceptance. Whereas interracial marriage was once not possible in America, now it’s common place. Antipathy may yield to tolerance, and eventually end in acceptance. The problem with a way station is that it can be confused with the destination and forward progress is halted.

Naturally, where I am headed with this is the notion that “We need to be more tolerant of gays.” “We,” of course, are the straight dispensers of power in the church or society. Who put us in charge of the destiny of anyone? We merely claimed it for ourselves by virtue of our majority position, and we are reluctant to abandon our status.

One thing I’ve learned in my many years of consulting with congregations on gay issues is that when churches initially become “Open and Affirming,” it usually means open to LGBTs and hoping to be affirming someday. We merely tolerate them in the meantime. Some don’t make the transition because they confuse toleration with acceptance. When pastors brag to me about their O&A congregations, I ask a simple question: “When did you hold your last same-sex wedding in the church?” Most of the time I get a reply that means, “We’re not ready for that yet.” Affirmation at its most basic means LGBTs are no longer an “other,” but as fully appreciated as we appreciate ourselves.

Okay, maybe we can’t do away with toleration all together as it does serve as a transitioning point to hoped for full inclusion. But we should never concede that it is sufficient.

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Is a Blessing

The controversy surrounding Phil Robertson's anti-gay remarks and his revisionist retelling of how African Americans loved their lives during the Jim Crow era found both supporters and detractors across America. I probably don't have to quote him here, so you can skip to the next paragraph if you're already sick of this coverage.  In an interview in the January issue of GQ, Robertson says homosexuality is a sin and equates it with bestiality and promiscuity. Here's the quote:

It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical. ...Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. 

 He also made comments regarding race and growing up in Louisiana during the Jim Crow era.

I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! ...Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.

Added to this is the most recent revelation that Robertson married his wife when she was only 16 years old and counsels other men to do the same, even to marry 15 year old girls.  Video here  

Recently his congregation's church secretary, Luanne Watts, told MailOnline they had been bombarded with calls and emails from Americans showing their support. She said: "What has happened is a blessing. Phil believes in the word of God and he will not shift from that." He is actually a very prominent elder and his fellow parishioners are solidly behind him.

Yes, Phil Robertson is a blessing. He is a portal into the mindset of homophobic America. As you know, nothing happens in a vacuum. His patriarchal views about women, his visceral reaction to same-sex love, his "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare" notions of the Jim Crow South, all stem from his literalistic view of the Bible.

A clear distinction needs to be made here. Following World War II, America began to see the rise of so-called "Bible believing churches." Now they are found in every city and small town. I am asked all the time if my church preaches the Bible. This is code for "literal preaching of the Bible." Any church that doesn't read the Bible literally is, in their minds, considered heretical. But the issue really isn't belief or unbelief, it's literal belief, or as I like to call it, informed belief. I definitely believe the Bible; I just read it, and therefore, understand it differently than literalists.

The literal belief system is a "face value" understanding of words on a page, that leaves the meaning at the surface level. Literalists understand words in the Bible just like the words in their newspapers without reference to the changed worldview involved. "The Bible says it; I believe it; that settles it!" You see, you can't take the Bible literally and seriously at the same time. Why? Because to take the Bible seriously you need to delve deep into the text.

The surface reading will more often than not lead you astray. Biblical hyperbole is a handy example. Proverbs 22.6 says, Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. I know from experience counseling mothers and fathers of children who departed from the faith, never to return, or ended up addicted to drugs, or incarcerated, who blame themselves and their parenting for the outcome based on this proverb. In their minds they didn't adhere to the way they should go well enough. They failed.

Literalism also accounts for the lingering doubts about racial equality. The "curse of Ham," reproducing only "after their kind," and certain Levitical instructions about keeping things separate (no planing of two kinds of crops in the same field, no wearing of garments composed of two kinds of cloth, etc.) are seen as mandates for segregation, And in case you think the issue of slavery has been decided, a world-class scholar in New Testament backgrounds told me that slavery would not be sinful today if conducted under biblical conditions. This notion is not uncommon in fundamentalist circles. We likely can't charge Robertson with endorsing slavery, but we can say he is comfortable with Jim Crow life.

Literalism is also why some fundamentalists believe that all LGBTs should be executed, based on the literal reading of Leviticus 20:13 while blithely ignoring all the other acts requiring the death penalty (including juvenile delinquency).  Roberson actually acknowledges this. "Do I call for homosexuals to be put to death? No, because if I did, I would have to include those that live in premarital sex, masturbation, adultery, violating the God given ability to divorce and re-marry..."1 In other words, he acknowledges that the Bible calls for all these and more to be put to death, but can't bring himself to go that far. But there are many who would.

Phil Robertson enables us to see the confusion, inhumanity, and twisted outlook that comes from a literal reading of the Bible. Yes, he is a blessing.

______________________________________________________________

1 http://patriotaction.net/profiles/blogs/phil-robertson-was-it-all-a-set-up-to-try-and-control-his-values

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Starting the first of the New Year, I will be resuming this blog with Monday through Friday comments. Selling our home, a move to a new city, and family health issues kept me away for much too long. I look forward to resuming these pages and hearing from you. In the meantime, I will comment on a few important issues.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

When Is the "The Will of the People" not the Will of the People? The Utah Experience

Here we go again!

It is said that the last refuge of scoundrels is patriotism.  Today, it is hiding behind the thin veil of sanctimony disguised as "the will of the people."  Whenever the majority votes to deny certain minorities the rights the majority enjoys, it's always "the will of the people." This solemnly uttered bit of piety is found in abundance whenever a state amendment against gay marriage is overturned by a court. It hit its highest decibel when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned California's Prop 8. Some people need to be informed that America is not a simple democracy; it is a Constitutional Republic.  That means that no matter what the majority wants, it cannot be granted if it oppresses the minority. That is, in large measure, what our constitution is for.

So, yesterday, when a federal judge struck down Utah's same-sex marriage ban, outraged local officials trotted out the canard that "the will of the people" had once again been overturned. It should be noted that when the 14th Amendment was passed, it became THE HIGHEST WILL OF THE PEOPLE, that the majority may not act to deny rights to the minority that they, themselves, enjoy. As state after state make same-sex marriage legal, largely on the basis of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, it is inevitable that the Justices of SCOTUS will eventually make marriage equality the law of the land, if the rest of the states don't beat them to it.

The federal judge overturning the Utah state ban made it effective immediately, so same-sex couples began lining up for marriage licenses and the mayor of Salt Lake City (no less) performed the first legal ceremony in the state. This will not be without opposition from the powers that be. Both Utah's governor and attorney general are pursuing whatever legal options they have, but their prospects are bleak.

Whenever an unjust law is overturned by a judge, we hear the accusation, "activist judges!" Yes, indeed. These judges are actively defending the highest will of the people as understood in the 14th Amendment.

An Answer to a Gay Conservative's Opposition to Gay Marriage

In a request by the editors of 10 Thousand Couples for people to evaluate a commentary by Mr. Doug Mainwaring, found here: http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/03/9432/, I offered the following statement.  Please read his statement before continuing on.

*************************************************

For someone who claims to be led by reason, Mr. Mainwaring contradicts himself throughout and offers specious arguments. His lead assertion that “Neither religion nor tradition has played a significant role in forming my stance” is undermined by his statement that “marriage is immutable,” and his fear of the weakening of traditional marriage.

Throughout, he makes unsupportable assertions, each one demonstrably false. 

1.      False assertion #1: Philia love between men is far better, far stronger, and far more fulfilling than erotic love can ever be.

His assertion that “eros is promoted in its stead,” fails to note that when Plato and other early Greek philosophers praised philia, they included eros in the equation.  According to the influential journal Psychology Today, “Whereas Aristotle is not nearly as interested in erotic love (erôs) as he is in friendship (philia), for Plato the best kind of friendship is that which lovers can have for each other. It is a philia that is born out of erôs, and that in turn feeds back into erôs to strengthen and to develop it.”  Non-erotic love between friends is truly beautiful, but they will likely be heterosexuals who find eros in other relationships.

I wonder why he leaves out “love between women”? 

2.      False assertion #2: “To be fully formed, children need to be free to generously receive from and express affection to parents of both genders. Genderless marriages deny this fullness.”

This assertion goes against prevailing psychological and sociological conclusions. Here’s just one example: The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry approved the following statement in support of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender parenting in 2009:

All decisions relating to custody and parental rights should rest on the interest of the child. There is no evidence to suggest or support that parents who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender are per se superior or inferior from or deficient in parenting skills, child-centered concerns, and parent-child attachments when compared with heterosexual parents. There is no credible evidence that shows that a parent's sexual orientation or gender identity will adversely affect the development of the child.

The real “deprivation” here is that Mr. Mainwaring is withholding from his children the kiss of philia that every parent owes his or her children.

3.      False assertion #3: “Marriage is not an elastic term; it is immutable.”

Just a cursory exploration of the history of marriage demonstrates how marriage has evolved over the centuries from polygamy, including polyandry as practiced in Britain in Julius Caesar’s time, the acceptance of concubines and more recently mistresses as part of the family, eras of no religious significance until 1000 AD in the Roman Catholic west, and, of course, common law marriages throughout time.  So what makes marriage “immutable”?  Certainly not society, or tradition, or religion which have shown themselves remarkably flexible in honoring changing arrangements over the millenniums.

4.      False assertion #4: Gay and lesbian activists, and more importantly, the progressives urging them on, seek to redefine marriage in order to achieve an ideological agenda that ultimately seeks to undefine (sic) families as nothing more than one of an array of equally desirable “social units,” and thus open the door to the increase of government’s role in our lives. [Emphasis mine]

Mr. Mainwaring is not simply a gay man with a personal opinion. He is a right wing activist with an agenda.  This observation is fair game as he opines at length against liberals and gay rights activists.  He is merely a social conservative who happens to be gay.  His politics is not the issue; his claims of objectivity and reason are and they just don’t hold water. At best, one may say that his opinions are right for him, and he is entitled to them, and we wish him well.  But to draw from personal insight and make them universal is asking too much in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

10 Thousand Couples offers a unique approach to gay issues, especially for gay families, on their website:

http://10thousandcouples.com/.  Check it out and let me know what you think.  You will find my first article for them, "But My Bible Says...Pt. 1" here: http://10thousandcouples.com/issue/october-2013/article/but-my-bible-says-part-1.

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 4: It's Use of Fear to Create Enemies

In a casual Google search for "gay threat to America" (try it yourself), this is the first item on the list, found here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705285940/Gays-greatest-threat-to-America-Buttars-says.html?pg=all

Sen. Chris Buttars believes gays and lesbians are "the greatest threat to America going down," comparing members of the LGBT community to radical Muslims.

"I believe they will destroy the foundation of the American society," the West Jordan Republican said in a recent interview with documentary filmmaker Reed Cowan. "In my mind, it's the beginning of the end. … Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide."

Buttars is a Utah state senator, and a Mormon, so it's not unusual that he would be anti-gay. What is unusual is his over-the-top rhetoric. "The greatest threat to America," and comparing LGBTs to radical Muslims would make Joseph McCarthy proud of such overreach. Combing through the article, I could not find anything to back up his comments except the notion that the destruction of the family will lead to the destruction of America. So far, there is no evidence that gay marriage will do anything of the kind, and in fact, seems only to be a strengthening force for marriage overall. 

Note, too, his use of Sodom and Gomorrah. Of all the Bible passages used to denounce gays, this is the most used and least applicable. Biblical scholars long ago removed any association with homosexuality from this story. Some of the most vigorous opponents of gays no longer consider Sodom and Gomorrah relevant. I attended a lecture by Joe Dallas, a leading proponent of Reparative Therapy (gays can change their sexual orientation). In going over the biblical passages that he said supported homosexualty as sinful, he didn't mention Sodom and Gomorrah at all. I check his handouts and not even there was any mention made. So I asked him, "Have you lost the battle on Sodom and Gomorrah?" To which he replied, "Yes." Nevertheless, some people will continue to abuse this scripture regardless of its inapplicability.

Then there's the "gay recruitment" scare tactic, designed to alarm parents and set them against their children's schools. Scott Lively's, "Seven Steps to Recruit-proof Your Child," purports to document the recruiting activities of gay activists, and it set off a spate of similar approaches to impede gay acceptance. Here's a typical version of how this works (from Wind Commentary http://www.wnd.com/1998/10/526/):

A training video called “It’s Elementary” teaches elementary school teachers how to get the “gay” message into primary grade classrooms. Books like “Daddy’s Roommate” and “Heather Has Two Mommies” are all too commonplace. The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teacher’s union, has openly adopted guidelines for promoting homosexuality in public education and many private schools already have yielded to the pressure to present homosexuality as a normal.

Imagine what goes through the minds of 12-year-old boys and girls when a gay activist tells them that 10 percent of the population is gay, and that 10 percent of their class has this “sexual orientation.” At this tender age, classrooms of teenagers and pre-teenagers, with their hormones raging, are being encouraged to follow their urges and experiment. If a child voices a question about the possibility of being gay to a teacher or other school officials, the parent most likely never will hear about it. These children often are referred to an outside “gay” counseling center run by active homosexuals.

This kind of scare works because it's built on the fallacy that gays can change their orientation. They can't, and neither can straights. Whenever someone suggests to me that sexual orientation is a choice (I can't believe we're still having these conversations...ugh!), I ask them how easy it would be for them to change. Another ugh! So if a 12 year-old is introduced to the gay orientation in a school class, there is nothing in that experience that can change his or her already set orientation. Here's a summary from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

The mechanisms for the development of a particular sexual orientation remain unclear, but the current literature and most scholars in the field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice; that is, individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. A variety of theories about the influences on sexual orientation have been proposed. Sexual orientation probably is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. In recent decades, biologically based theories have been favored by experts. Although there continues to be controversy and uncertainty as to the genesis of the variety of human sexual orientations, there is no scientific evidence that abnormal parenting, sexual abuse, or other adverse life events influence sexual orientation. Current knowledge suggests that sexual orientation is usually established during early childhood.

The one thing that all these hate and fear-mongers have in common is the lack of evidence to support their claims. Note the appeal in the Wind Commentary to "imagine what goes through the minds of 12-year-old boys and girls." Yes, imagine. Imagine, because that's all that's left to you after the experts have spoken. 

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 3: Their Use of the Bible

Here are a few things to bear in mind when the discussion of homosexuality and the Bible arises. First, there is no word in either Greek or Hebrew for homosexual and the like. More importantly, there is no concept of sexual orientation, either. In the Greco-Roman world, there was only appropriate and inappropriate sex. Dio Chrysostom (a contemporary of the apostle Paul) famously said that the same passion that drove a man to a female prostitute would drive the same man to a male prostitute. 

Since there is no word for homosexuality, no Bible translation should have "homosexual" or its synonyms in it. Some, using the Dynamic Equivalent translation process, think they have found a modern equivalent in homosexual or "sodomy." Yet, what we know of homosexuality today is far removed from that of the ancient past. There is no apples-to-apples correspondence. Quite to the contrary, the differences in sexual behaviors are striking and most are not replicated in our day. Given what Chrysostom said, which is typical of his day, even heterosexuality cannot be thought of as a concept then, or considered anything like what we know of it today. As regards the term "sodomy," it was not coined until 1000 years after the New Testament was written. Any Bible translation that uses it is anachronistic. 

So, when people say, "My Bible says that homosexuality, sodomy, etc., is a sin," they are not quoting the Bible, they are quoting a mistranslation purporting to be Scripture but isn't. 

As for "my Bible says," here's how I begin the discussion of interpreting the Bible in my book, Marriage Equality:

The ultimate recourse for those who want to keep homosexuality on the sins list is, “My Bible says....” The sentence generally ends with “...homosexuals are an abomination,” or, “...gays are going to hell,” or “…God hates gays.” This is intended to be the final word on the matter; the Bible has spoken, the issue is clear, we can move on to other things. How so? Because the Bible has spoken.

The Bible, of course says no such thing. I will prove it to you. Go get your Bible. Now, take it in your hands and bring it up to your eyes. Say to it very clearly, “Bible, tell me, what do you have to say about homosexuality?” If you don't hear anything, repeat your question; maybe louder this time. If there is still no answer, shake it; it may be taking a nap. Still hearing nothing? Well, that's all right, because if you do hear the Bible answering, you may be on your way to a psychiatric hospital. 

The Bible “says” nothing. It is an inert object, words on paper. It can’t utter a sound. Of course, you knew that all along, yet you may still want to repeat that the Bible says something. What is really going on is that people say the Bible says something; people speak on behalf of  the Bible. The Bible is deaf and mute.

Unfortunately, people too often make what “the Bible says” what they want it to say. You see, there is no such thing as an uninterpreted reading of anything, from the daily newspaper to the Bible. All of us read (or “hear what it says”) though a filter or a lens. No one can read without one. Your filter/lens is everything that you have learned through your culture, ethnicity, gender, nationality, education...you get the point...that shapes how you perceive meaning. Every word you read or hear is processed through this filtering system. 

Everyone reads or hears the same word or words differently. Depending on how far apart our systems are, we can basically understand each other or totally misunderstand. In explaining this to an adult Sunday School class, one member said, “I can think of something we both read that needs no filtering, that is straightforward and immediately understood.” “Okay,” I said. “Let's have it.” He responded, “God is love.” I replied with, “What do you mean by 'God' and what do you mean by 'love'”? He got my point.

I could fill this post with any number of quotes from religious leaders, politicians and pundits of all kinds who repeat how the Bible condemns gays. This is unnecessary because you, my reader, have first-hand experience in hearing/reading such and in voluminous quantity. Finding an informed commentator who actually has studied the issue and isn't merely passing on unreflected upon, second-hand opinion is rare. Such is the success of the Anti-gay Industry. It has convinced people that the Bible condemns homosexuality when it doesn't even know what that is!

The success of convincing the public that homosexuality is evil spills over into the nonreligious as well. A question was posed in Yahoo Answers, "Are there any anti-gay nonreligious out there?" Here's the answer voted "best" by the readers:

Yes there are, I have no religious affiliations and I think being homosexual is an abomination to mankind, the anus is not a pleasure organ, if everyone was homosexual then the world would end, there would be no reproduction. Homosexuals will end us all, but they are good for spreading diseases, but if being homosexual is acceptable so should having sexual intercourse with animals, it's about the same thing, think about that.

Note the use of "abomination." Where do you suppose that came from ? And all the reasons given for being anti-gay are right out of the Industry's playbook, and they are all twisted from biblical sources.  One has to wonder about the critical thinking skills of the voters who made this response the best. It just shows how much work is left to do. 

The Anti-gay Industry, Part 2: Sources of Deception

The Anti-gay Industry is just that, an industry. It is an admixture of various parachurch ministries, churches, academics, and psychological practitioners that are organized around one mission: to stop the advancement of gay rights in America. It has enormous power in the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christian world, and its spokespeople are the most evident in the mainstream media. They are "the voice and face" of what purports to be Christianity in America. (Remember how Jerry Falwell seemed to be on every channel at once?) They occupy high offices in Congress, fill various federal and state legislatures and agencies, and are found on school boards in every district. And, yes, they are mostly Republicans, a condition that worries not only the more moderate Republicans, but Democrats who understand the need for a two-party political system that actually works for the good of the whole.

Their ant-gay bias is a combination of many factors, chief among them being a literal understanding of the Bible. It's important to state at the outset that EVEN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE does not support the notion that homosexuality is a sin or that God despises LGBTs. (For a complete analysis of all the Bible passages that are used to support anti-gay bias, see the chapter "But My Bible Says..." in my book, Marriage Equality. Clicking on the icon book cover on the left of this page will take you to Amazon.) That said, many people are led to believe the worst, and they do. Most of them are genuinely sincere and their motivations are pure; they simply are convinced that homosexuals are a menace to America by the Anti-gay Industry, which exploits their biblical naivety, and feeds them propaganda on a daily basis through their radio and TV shows, websites, emails and fundraising letters.

Another factor that supports the Industry in its subtrafuge is the exploitation of human's natural fear of "the other." Differences can be exploited to pit people against people as we have seen in race-baiting politics, the "Huns" of World War I, the "atheistic communists" of the Cold War, and LGBTs of today. If you are continually subjected to messages from your pastor, legislators, and people you trust that the greatest menace to your family and your children is gay rights, you naturally will be inclined to believe it without access to evidence to the contrary. How easily some people were convinced of this is in how many actually believe that same-sex marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage. No credible evidence of any kind has been submitted to substantiate this. It's simply taken as a given. Good grief!

Pseudoscience and pseudopsychology supply the intellectual backdrop for the Industry. The technical name for the theory that gays can change their orientation is Reparative Therapy. It is repudiated by every substantial psychological and medical professional group across the board in America. In order for there to be such a therapy, it first must be established that there is a strong need for such.  Here is where the onslaught of propaganda enters the picture that creates the impression that gays are abnormal, deviant, psychologically disturbed, pedophiles, disease ridden, short lived, promiscuous and (you fill in the blank). 

Then there are the "studies" that purport to show a very dark side to life in the gay community. Whenever they are peer reviewed—which is seldom, because they know they can't withstand that kind of scrutiny—they are universally shown to be fallacious, if not wholly made up. 

Over the next several postings we will examine these and other sources that the Industry draws upon to shape their arguments and mislead their constituents. We will look at the journals, associations,  ministries,  institutions, and leaders that subvert the truth and make life miserable for millions of LGBTs who otherwise would be free to live their lives as unencumbered as the rest of us.   

In the meantime, I leave you with this apology that John Paulke, a longtime advocate against gay rights, recently gave to the gay community at large. He was once the chairman of Exodus International and the organizer of Focus on the Family's, Love One Out program.

For the better part of ten years, I was an advocate and spokesman for what's known as the "ex-gay movement," where we declared that sexual orientation could be changed through a close-knit relationship with God, intensive therapy and strong determination. At the time, I truly believed that it would happen. And while many things in my life did change as a Christian, my sexual orientation did not….Please allow me to be clear: I do not believe that reparative therapy changes sexual orientation; in fact, it does great harm to many people.

 Finally, I know there are still accounts of my "ex-gay" testimony out there being publicized by various groups, including two books that I wrote about my journey. I don't get any royalties from these publications, and haven't since I left the ministry nearly ten years ago. I discourage anyone from purchasing and selling these books or promoting my "ex-gay" story because they do not reflect who I am now or what I believe today.

The full text of the apology can be found here: http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2013/04/24/john-paulk-formally-renounces-apologizes-harmful-ex-gay-movement

One final thought. Although for many months Mr. Paulk has repudiated his books, repeatedly requested they be ignored, and called on his former allies to stop using his now rejected testimony, the Anti-gay Industry continues to use them. Such is the nature of the forces we are up against.

The Anti-Gay Industry: Fear-Baiters for Profit and Power, Part 1

 "A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat.  If no external threat exists, then one has to be manufactured." - Leo Strauss, 20th century political philosopher

One of the oldest frauds in the world is to manufacture an enemy and then exploit the fear engendered for all the money/votes/power possible. The classic American example is the notorious Sen. Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, whose Red-baiting and hysterical claims of a communist under every government bed during the Cold War era of the 1950s, gave us the sobriquet, "McCarthyism," the modern equivalent of "crying wolf."

A present day McCarthy wannabe is former Rep. Allen West, R-Fla. At a town hall meeting, West said he thinks as many as 81 House Democrats "are members of the Communist Party." He was referring to the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Fortunately, no one took him seriously, at least no one with critical thinking skills.

I remember as a child listening to the radio broadcasts of Rev. Billy James Hargis and the Christian Crusade. Hargis was crusading against the Red menace that was about to take over America, and its sly maneuver to corrupt our youth through teaching sex education in schools. It turns out that Hargis was doing his own corrupting with the boys of his church, college and camp, and was forced to resign from all his ministries and organizations. (Hargis denied the charges, but left nonetheless.) Since then there have been a spate of people who decry this and that who have been found involved intimately in the things they (publically) abhor. Ted Haggard, and Sens. Larry Craig and David Vitter come to mind.

This is not to say that all who indulge in enemy-baiting are insincere hypocrites. Not at all. There are many who find threats to their prefered view of things that are not only sincere, but consistent in their words and work. I am concerned here with 1) the reality that "enemies" make for good politics as well as personal gain, and 2) there are those who regularly exploit fear of enemies and even create enemies out of whole cloth. Today, with communism largely confined to Cuba, exploiters needed to find a new "enemy."

I am reminded of an incident Mel White relates when he was ghost writing Rev. Jerry Falwell's "autobiography." They were together in San Francisco where Falwell spoke to a large audience in a downtown hotel. After the speech, they had to muscle their way into their limo because a local gay protest had managed to block their way and, once in the car, impeded their progress. Amid the shouting, jostling of the car, and general hoopla, Falwell turned to Mel and said, "If I didn't have these gays, I'd have to invent them."

Yes, some "enemies" to exploit are readily at hand. And the Anti-gay Industry is alive and well today doing just that. I will be posting a series on the more destructive of these neo-McCarthyites over the next few days. We will begin by examining the pool of accumulated data that purports to be scientific studies that all the major players draw from, yet turn out to be as bogus and helpful as the latest fad diet. Stay tuned!

Will 2013 Go Down as the Annus Mirabilis of the Gay Rights Struggle?

Rev. Steve Kindle
Ex. Dir. Clergy United
www.clergyunited.org

Just as Martin Luther King Jr. either prophesied or intuited, the arc of history, at least here in the USA, continues to bend toward justice.  Just a year ago, few had in mind the rapid fire changes that resulted in now 13 states offering same-sex marriage, and what looks like an irresistible march toward fifty state compliance.  I admit that I am giddy over the prospects.

Then there's the almost impossible-to-call reversal of the stance held by Exodus International, the first and largest ex-gay movement in the world, that gays could change their sexual orientation by either good counseling provided by the reparative therapy crowd, or getting right with God. The bodies that are littering the paths of all who held out such hope are staggeringly high.  Not only has EI repudiated their mission, they have called it quits! We would be celebrating this amazing turn of events were it not for so much carnage wrought getting there.

You may (I hope) have noticed my absence on this blog this past month.  Well, I've learned that when you self-publish a book, it takes as much energy after the publication to get it noticed as it did to write it. That includes writing about it as much as writing it!  So, silly me, I actually have another book on the way.  Some people can put out volumes (check out my friend, Bob Cornwall's blog and book output, for example:http://www.bobcornwall.com/).  But I'm a "bleeder," as they say in the guild.  I suffer over every word and much prefer seeing what I have written than writing it.

I bring this up because of the serendipitous moments that arrive just when you need one. Such a moment happened yesterday. My new book is for parents of gay children, If Your Child Is Gay: What every parent of a gay child needs to know to insure a positive outcome in an often negative world. It should be out next week. (Watch this space!)  I had written what I know is an obvious critique of the leaders of the "Anti-gay Industry." Here's a bit of it:

Not everyone in America is of the same mind on the subject of homosexuality, as I am sure you know. This is not to say that reasonable minds can disagree and we can leave it at that. You see, the opposition, for the most part, is unreasonable to the point of obstinacy. Why? They are most often driven by ideology, not the search for reliable facts or even interested at all in you or your children’s well-being. 

What I wrote is absolutely true, and those of us who are close to the ins and outs of the daily struggle with the Anti-gay Industry are well aware of this.  However, for a parent who is just being introduced to things gay, it is not apparent; it's even counter intuitive to believe that. They come off so sincere and righteous.  So, I knew I had to find a way to make this point and one was not easily at hand.  Until yesterday, that is. So here is how I was able to finish the thought:

A recent apology to the entire gay community from a long-time lobbyist for the largest anti-gay ministry in the world, Randy Thomas, underscores this. Here is part of what he admitted to on July 22, 2013, in a posting on his personal blog http://randythomas.co/2013/07/23/apology/ : 

"I participated in the hurtful echo chamber of condemnation. I gave lip service to the gay community, but really did not exemplify compassion for them. I placed the battle over policy [read: ideology] above my concern for real people. I sometimes valued the shoulder pats I was given by religious leaders more than Jesus' commandment to love and serve. That was wrong and I'm disappointed in myself. Please forgive me."

As could be predicted, the Industry was out in force jamming his blog with so much hateful commenting about his apology that Randy had to install a comment review program before posting any more comments. Such is the behaviour of those who supposedly do their work out of love for humanity.

The huge increase in gay marriage rights and the decline of Exodus International in 2013 may very well mean that this year will be looked upon as the Annus Mirabilis of the Gay Rights Movement, even as 1963 is for the Civil Rights Movement.  Martin Luther King would be proud. 

It's Not Over--by a Longshot

Rev. Steve Kindle, Ex. Dir
Clergy United, Inc.
www.clergyunited.org

My friend and writer for the Ex-Gay Watch, Michael Airhart, visited Judson Memorial Church in NYC on Pride Sunday. The sermon  found here from Community Minister Micah Bucey reminded the congregation that the struggle for gay dignity is far from over. Here's a salient quote from the sermon

We, as a queer community, even as we celebrate immense progress, are in danger of inactively disappearing our own people. Our Marriage Equality campaigns have embraced the institution and ignored the less easily assimilated members of our queer community. Our visibility is helping kids to come out at younger ages, but some are being kicked out of their homes, coming to New York City to find community and, in a terrible twist, being booted off of the piers by the very residents of the Village who came here decades ago to find their own safely queer space.

There's a general impression that with the right to marry, LGBTs have achieved full equality. Setting aside for the moment that full equality means 50 state participation, and employment protection, as well as myriad other goals not yet achieved, this victory is only for those who are easily assimilated into the wider culture.  There are many others not yet the focus of concern and, as Bucey points out, are becoming rarer even on the  radar screens of the gay community.  These include the young, poor, and queerer, especially the "I's and Ts."   Intersexuals, transsexuals, transvestites, transgender, and transitioning still have miles to go before they can rest in the security of public acceptance and equal rights.

Only recently have the "Is and Ts" been welcome in the movement, an ironic situation, since the historic moment of Stonewall was largely accomplished by transvestites refusing to be abused by NYC police. They have been on the outside looking in for most of the decades of the rise of the gay rights movement. Casual observers of social change aren't aware of the animosities that existed, and still do in some areas, between gays and lesbians, and LGBs and Ts.

I was attending a cocktail party hosted by a prominent gay organization where a transexual was a featured speaker.  She was mingling in the crowd when a gay man approached me with a question. "Is she (formerly a man, now a woman) straight or gay?"  "I don't know," I said. "But she definitely is queer!"  Thus the acronym is expanded to include Qs, people who don't normally fit into neat categories.  And because they don't easily fit into nicely received gender roles, they struggle for acceptance, even among those who should know better.

Another story will help illustrate my point. When I was a pastor of a church in Honolulu, our church president was a pre-op transsexual.  Formerly, Jane was a Marine who fought in Vietnam and still was a hulking, imposing figure. My wife was not as familiar with Ts as I, and her comfort level was low.  She was full of anxiety as to what to say to her, how to say it, and didn't want to embarrass Jane or herself. But she made the effort. One day she confessed to me that she no longer had any anxieties. She discovered, in the midst of a conversation about fingernail care with Jane, that the "otherness" completely disappeared and she was simply talking with another woman.  My point? Until we as a society can get as comfortable with those less like ourselves, as we have with gays in general, the Is and Ts and Qs will remain on the edges of society, even on the edges of gay society.

So, let's not rest on our victory laurels just yet. In fact, we need to double down on our support of Is, Ts, and Qs. Martin Luther King's standard is still true that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." LGBTIQ is not just an acronym.  It represents a people who deserve the dignity inherent in all yet still denied to some. The cause continues.

Today We Celebrate

America, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, made a giant step today in fulfilling the vision of our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, that all people are equal under the law. The federal Defense of Marriage Act's section 3 is found "unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment." By striking down DOMA, same-sex couples who are legally married are entitled to equal treatment under federal law.

The Court also issued its ruling on Hollingsworth v. Perry, ruling that the originators of Proposition 8 did not have the constitutional authority, or standing, to defend the law in federal courts since the state refused to appeal its loss in circuit court. This returns the right of all citizens of California to marry the person of their choosing.

Now 13 states and the District of Columbia have equal marriage rights coupled with federal protections and benefits. We achieved this, not through armed uprising, but by vigorous, relentless voicing of this indignity and revealing to the world that ours is a just cause. We have every right to rejoice in our good fortune. We also need to remember that others will be devastated.  Even though some in the opposition lied, cheated and bullied their way through the contentious decades of this struggle, many hold to such opposition out of sincerely held beliefs. All we have to do is recall our own feelings when things didn't go our way to understand how others may feel. This demonstrates what we have been saying all along: we share a common humanity. Gloating is reserved for those who don’t appreciate this. I am happy to say I have not observed anything but glee.

With marriage bans still in place outside of California, the struggle is far from over. We will continue the struggle in states without marriage equality until it’s achieved, with a great advantage. The example of California and the twelve other states with marriage equality will be enormous. The contrast of those states where all marriages enjoy all the federal and state rights and benefits will be stark. Pressure will mount as one state, then another, grants marriage equality. It will be hard to maintain old prejudices and the rigid confines of traditional marriage over time. People will see there really is no good reason to object any longer. 

So, today, we proponents of equality under the law, celebrate. These are huge victories, forecasting the future of America when all 50 states will have equal marriage rights.  This is inevitable.  There is no turning back.  But it will not be automatic; it will be won the same way we won today: person by person, state by state, ballot by ballot and legislature by legislature.

I'm off to San Francisco to join with The Religious Leader's Press Conference sponsored by the Coalition of Welcoming Congregations. As I said, today we celebrate!

Preparing for the Supreme Court’s Decisions on Prop 8 and DOMA

If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct…what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising 'the liberty protected by the Constitution?

~ Justice Antonin Scalia (This quote is taken from his minority dissent to Lawrence v. Texas when the court struck down sodomy laws)

First, America needs a civics lesson
Contrary to the National Organization for Marriage’s wishes and all others who were disappointed when California’s Proposition 8 was struck down, and feel abused, the people DO NOT get to decide what’s constitutional and what’s not. Fortunately, we live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.  For in a pure democracy, if 51% of the people want to cut off the heads of the other 49%, for whatever reason, it would happen.  Our Constitution forbids majority coercion of the minority and in fact was created, in no small part, to protect the rights of the minority. So if, say, California passes a proposition that provides that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California,” the fact that the majority of voters voted yes does not mean it passes constitutional muster.  The same holds true for DOMA. That’s why, for those who are opposed to marriage equality, DOMA is not enough and only a Constitutional amendment will do.

Ironically, if we were to let the people decide, as NOM would have it, the tide has turned and the majority of Californians and Americans are now in favor of same-sex marriage.  Given their favorable attitude toward LGBTs, when the Millennial generation assumes power, this will be a long forgotten era of American history.  Just as today when young people are told of Jim Crow and the struggle for Civil Rights, and they are mystified as how this could ever have been, so too will generations from now find it hard to believe that gay people couldn’t get married.

How DOMA and Prop 9 control the lives of LGBTs up to now
The federal Defense of Marriage Act effectively does two things. First, it defines marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is either husband or wife.  Second, it allows states the right to decline to recognize same-sex marriages that are legal in other states.

The federal General Accounting Office identified “1,049 federal statutory provisions classified to the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status or in which marital status is a factor”. This shuts out LGBTs from all federal benefits accorded to opposite-sex couples, including income tax breaks, Social Security survivor’s benefits, and health care. The GAO upgraded the number of benefits to 1,139 in 2003.

In California, Proposition 8 is a constitutional amendment, passed in 2008, which said marriage defined as “only between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” It overturned the California Supreme Court’s ruling that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. There was a window from June 16 to November 5, 2009 when same-sex marriage was legal and these marriages continue to be legal and likely will not be affected by SCOTUS’s ruling.

Possible Supreme Court outcomes

Most court watchers count the possible outcomes as four or five, reducing the likely outcomes to three. They range in scope from total victory for marriage equality across the board, to the status quo remaining in place. We will look at each outcome from best to worst, at least in the eyes of supporters of same-sex marriage.

DOMA and Proposition 8 are both struck down
Marriage would become the legal right of every couple, regardless of sexual orientation. Although this is the least likely outcome, it is possible. It is, of course, the most desirable outcome for those of us working for marriage equality. The reality that no couple in America could be denied the full dignity and rights presently accorded only to opposite-sex couples would mean that LGBTs are no longer second-class citizens.
A narrow interpretation would restore same-sex marriage rights to California and confer federal marriage benefits to all legally married same-sex couples throughout America. It would not affect marriage bans in other states; they would remain intact.

DOMA struck down, but Prop 8 upheld
Legally married same-sex couples in California and elsewhere will begin receiving the 1,139 federal marriage benefits. However, same-sex marriage will not be legal in California as well as the other states with similar bans. Those Californians legally married in 2009 will most likely not have their marriages made null and void.

Prop 8 struck down, but DOMA upheld
With the demise of Prop 8, marriage equality will be reinstated in California, and may overturn similar bans in place in other states. However, legally married same-sex couples will be denied all federal rights and benefits related to marriage. Second-class citizenship will continue.

We may know the outcomes as soon as tomorrow.  When the decisions are made public, I will post a column on where we go from here.

(This post was adapted from my book, Marriage Equality: Why same-sex marriage is good for the church and nation found here: http://www.amazon.com/Marriage-Equality-Same-sex-marriage-church/dp/1484967127/ref=)

The Slow Demise of Exodus International and the Rise of Gay Acceptance

When Exodus International started 37 years ago, it had the wind at its back. In 1976, the Gay Rights Movement was just beginning to be heard from, most Americans didn't give homosexuality a second thought except perhaps to condemn it, and the professional organizations, which soon would reevaluate their opinions, were treating gayness as a psychological disorder. So when Exodus International announced its program of helping LGBTs "return to normal" (heterosexuality), many were prepared to endorse it and thousands of gays submitted to reparative therapy. So what went wrong, so wrong in fact that Exodus International had to shut it doors forever?

Several factors are involved, of course. The primary one is the failure of reparative therapy to produce the results they advertised. No combination of aversion therapy, shock treatments (yes!), prayer, peer pressure or even self-loathing could make the miracle of change happen. It became clear early on that what was actually happening was gays who were horrified at the thought of spending eternity in hell were sublimating at best and ignoring at worst their same-sex desires that never went away.  In fact, Alan Chambers, the departing executive director of Exodus International confessed that 99.9% of all the gays he knew in the program did not change. So they were counseled on how to defend against these unwanted desires with spiritual practices that also did not work. This prompted a former Exodus International board member to actually suggest that Exodus International change its motto from "Change is possible through Jesus Christ," to "Come suffer with us."  And suffer they did.

Reparative therapy, itself, is based on a false theory of homosexual origination.  The repair aspect is devoted to repairing the poor relationship a gay man has with his father, which is seen as the primary reason that gays seek out other men: their fathers failed to provide proper emotional support while they were growing up. Distant fathers AND mothers are to blame. This theory is wholly unsupported by all the major professional organizations that are charged with researching and supporting psychological health. I actually heard Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, the major proponent of reparative therapy in America today, tell parents of gay children that they should not blame themselves. Not because they failed in their childrearing, but because society failed them by making it so difficult to raise children.  Somehow, I don't think this was comforting.

Over time, the accumulating body of ex-ex-gays could not be ignored and their message began to overwhelm the "change" message of Exodus International  In fact, Exodus International actually changed its motto not too long before it closed to "Reaching the world in grace and truth." That is quite a departure from their original intention and may foreshadow the new direction of this ministry, albeit, under a different name and institutional configuration.

Then in 1973 the wind left their back: the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder. The American Psychological Association followed in 1975. Other major mental health organizations followed and eventually the World Health Organization declassified it in 1990. Exodus International and its reparative therapy allies no longer had a leg to stand on.  All they could do was help the deeply religious  to cope with their situation.

Yesterday's post details those people and organizations that confronted Exodus International over the years with their abysmal failure to achieve their goal of transformation. No longer could Exodus International trot out their "success stories" because too many of them denounced the program and admitted they did not change.  There was no place for them to go except to close.

Although I am ecstatic over this news, I also feel a sense of honor is due to Chambers and his board.  Yes, Chambers engaged in hyperbole (if not outright lying) in leading his organization, and yes, many lives were destroyed in the process. In the end, Chambers admitted all this, asked for forgiveness and called a stop to the program. This is so much more than Nicolosi of NARTH, Joe Dallas of Genesis Counseling, Andrew Comiskey of Desert Stream Ministries, and dozens of fellow-travelers are willing to do--and should. Only the future activities of Chambers will confirm his sincerity. One thing is for sure: he is off to a good start.

So it turns out that the most important reason Exodus International closed its doors is that its most celebrated  example of "change through the power of Jesus Christ" hasn't changed, can't change, and finally admits it. With that truth staring Chambers in his own face, how could he, with any integrity, continue the deception? He details his apology in the video below. I hope that it will be taken to heart by the many, many others in the false hope of change business so that countless lives will be spared this evil delusion.

Exodus Head Alan Chambers' Full Apology to the LGBT Community

In an unprecedented admission, Alan Chambers, president of the so-called "ex-gay" organization Exodus International, apologizes to survivors of "reparative therapy" who feel they were harmed by the organization. Watch the full, uncut apology here. More videos and information can be found here, thanks to Lisa Ling and oprah.com http://www.oprah.com/own-our-america-lisa-ling/Sneak-Peak-Lisa-Lings-Special-Report-God-and-Gays-Video