19
Sep 09

Experience God

One of the people I follow on Twitter is Deepak Chopra, and this morning I found this:

@Deepak_Chopra Our experience of God evolves as we evolve.

This is so true. It isn’t that God evolves, God may not. God may be exactly the same today as 10,000 years ago, but what changes is our experience of God, and thus our understanding of God. In fact for us to have a healthy relationship with God, with ourselves and with others, our experience of God must evolve. Otherwise we stay stuck, and immobilized.

Creation, but it’s very nature is a dynamic process of destruction and construction. When we attempt to force God, and our experience of God to be the same, we fail to acknowledge the greatest aspect of God, which is creation. God isn’t stifled, creation continues, but we loose sync with it, we become ignorant of it. It is like being in a beautiful flower garden. We may know that there are beautiful flowers all around us, but we refuse to inhale and experience their fragrance, so we miss experiencing the fullness of our experience of God.

The greatest example of a failure for our collective experience of God, is the forced adherence by some, to a purely Biblical experience of God. The Bible describes the experience of God by others in another time, space and set of circumstances. Not only does this fail to acknowledge our own experience of God, either collectively or individually, but it refuses to accept or acknowledge the reality of creation that is being human. It reduces God to a concrete set of attributes, expressions, behaviors and meanings- the exact opposite of creation.


09
Sep 09

Texas Church Sponsors Pro-Gay Christian Billboards

Saw this on Twitter and had to write about it! Thanks to @QueerJohnPA and @lgbtlife for posting.

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

Please read the article linked, I’m not going to show any quotes from it, but it is a good read. I’m more interested to share my own reactions to these billboards.

First, I’d like to say that they are really gutzy, and I really give them credit for putting themselves out there like that. The message- that Jesus and the Bible is more welcoming and inclusive than some think it is- is a valuable message to share. But if their goal is to get people, especially Christian believers to rethink their negative judgements of gays and lesbians, I’m not sure how successful this is going to be.

If I have any real beef about the project, is the way it uses scripture. Consider Matthew 19: 10-12, (displayed here from the NIV)

10The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.

12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Now, this is a very interesting passage, especially following the earlier passages of Matthew 19, but how can anyone interpret it to say that “Jesus said some are born Gay.” Jesus didn’t say that unless the Greek for Eunuch(????????) is exactly the same as Greek for Gay (????????????), which it isn’t. And frankly as a gay man, I’m not sure how I feel about being called a Eunuch.

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

Genesis 2:24 and Ruth 1:14 (NIV)

24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

14 At this they wept again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law good-by, but Ruth clung to her.

There is a wonderfully beautiful story to be told about the love between these two women, although I’m hard pressed to say that they became one flesh. Here’s the same problem as the Matthew example. By trying to distill it down to a few passages, and then claim this is what it means, can’t possible provide any real teaching. It can only set the stage for a dispute about does it mean this or not. The tactic of pulling individual verses and claiming to know exactly what it means, that is the problem, not the solution to the problem.

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

WouldJesusDiscriminate.com

The last billboard is probably the saddest example, for this is truly a rich and meaningful story.

Matthew 8:5-13 (NIV)

5When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6″Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”

7Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”

8The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

10When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

13Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

How they get from “a centurion and a servant” to “a gay couple” is truly remarkable, if not deplorable. If you go to the web site there is a full explanation of each passage.

The reality is that there may have been men who loved men and women who loved women in that time and place, but our contemporary understanding of Gay simply does not apply. There were no gay couples, where a couple is understood as an equal partnering of 2 men or two women.

Faith and tradition are things that many will defend and protect even beyond reason. To mess around with someone’s understanding, especially when they feel pretty sure they know what it means, is to invite a defensiveness and promote an unwillingness to be open to other interpretations. To place contemporary constructs (ex: born gay, gay couple) into a biblical era is just as bad as those who go the other way.


02
Sep 09

What is Murder?

Steven Anderson has recently been in the news. As a pastor, he prays for Obama to die. The other day, Sirius XM radio host Michelangelo Signorile had him on the air, and the linked blog is about that exchange, and it includes a Youtube video. What I found most intriguing about the exchange was the questioning about murder. According to Anderson, if someone assassinated the President, it wouldn’t be murder, but the legal abortion provider George Tiller  was a murderer.

I have written before critical of Christianity, and even been accused of “hating God,” but the reality is I think Faith is important, and I believe we all deserve to be free to follow the faith tradition that speaks to us. Yet, I have to wonder, how extremist views like this grow and are so easily expressed as if they are rational thinking?

I also think that the rhetoric surrounding homosexuality and GLBTQ issues is going to get far more intense. We are at a critical juncture in history, when Science and culture are at odds with somethings written more than 2000 years ago. As Faith Traditions have handcuffed themselves to the Holy Bible, almost in isolation of fact and reason, it is going to be a pretty bumpy ride. Even denominations which claim to include reason and other methodology to understanding the true Will of God, such as the Methodists (I actually thing John Wesley would be astounded that the denomination that has grown from him ministry has forgotten so much of where that denomination came from) now find themselves clinging only to this very, very old book.

It is true that even Science doesn’t have a full understanding of Human Sexuality, but at one time, nor did it have any awareness that all of the planets in our solar system rotate around the sun. I guess the church didn’t learn much over that mix up. I am not bothered that some preachers can speak with so much condemnation of gay people. They are ignorant and we don’t yet have the Science that makes it as clear as Galileo’s work began to make the movement of the planets clear.

But murder?

Is the Church (in the most general sense) and God’s Will really so conflicted about what is murder? I feel sad for anyone who follows this preacher.

Pastor Steven Anderson: “If you’re a homosexual, I hope you get brain cancer like Ted Kennedy” « From the Left.


02
Sep 09

The Bible is Not About Beating LGBT People Up

Michael Jones is one of my favorite bloggers, and today writes about the  HRC project, “Out in Scripture.” Here is a quote from the book’s editor:

As editor Sidney Fowler said, ‘The Bible is not about beating you up, but lifting us all up.  It includes the seeds of liberation and justice.’ Be prepared to be transformed as well.”

It’s kind of like a week-by-week look at the Bible with a lens on LGBT spirituality.  And it highlights an ongoing trend between religiousity and LGBT rights.

Sounds perfect for anyone following my podcast.

The Bible is Not About Beating LGBT People Up (Gay Rights – Change.org).


06
Aug 09

Finding God on Reality TV

Wow, this makes Queer Look at the Bible seem pretty lame in comparison.

Choosing My Religion: Finding God on Reality TV – ABC News.


01
Aug 09

Thoughts on God and Sex-Changes

I decided to post this here on Queer Look at the Bible because of the potentially theologic implications and scriptural basis of the underlying argument.

First, I’d encourage anyone to read both Earl’s post, and then all of the comments, for this is a really rich discussion. and then, after reading that, read through my comments. and then lastly, post a reply here or on Earl’s blog or both.

It is easy to think of Christian Thought as an oxymoron when you read any number of far right religious blogs, and then I find something like Earl’s blog and I fall in love, all over again with Religion, Theology, and all that comes with it. I think one of the reasons I have struggled getting my podcast going again is that I have lost some of the passion and curiosity that first stole my heart as I dug into religious issues, images and meaning more than a dozen years ago. So, to me this is such a gift for me!

Earl tears apart a basic religious justification against transgenders and the process of sex-changes, and succintly articulates a number of the issues involved in sorting this through. As he put it:

After all, if God has specifically and omnipotently designed each person then changing one’s divinely-designated gender may be understood as, ultimately, one’s dissatisfaction with God.

While some of his commenters don’t like his use of the idea of birth defects to illustrate his reasoning, it made perfect sense to me. He writes:

If birth defects exist as a part of nature, why then is gender a non-negotiable?

In other words, those who claim that each person is created exactly as God intended, and therefore, no alteration should be needed- that argument falls apart when you think of birth defects. Birth defects are natural occurring as part of nature.

I’m with Earl, but there is a scriptural basis for the non-negotiation of gender. Genesis:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

A strict adherence to scripture suggests that everyone falls into one of these 2 categories, even though we know that there are individuals born with both male and female sex organs, as well as individuals whose bodies are clearly one or the other, but for whom their sense of their gender does not align with their body. Frankly, I’ve always been suspicious of this passage where it says: “…man in our image, in our likenes” I never understood where the “our” came from.

Aside from that, however, this issue revolves on the purpose and connection of gender, and sex. What we are learning about these from Science suggests they are more complex than once thought.

One of the things this brings up for me, is the connection between exploring what it means for God to be the creator who creates in God’s own image, and what it means for us as human beings, to understand God based upon how we see ourselves.

The Wanderings of a Theological Vagabond » Blog Archive » Thoughts on God and Sex-Changes .

Resources:

Straight Guys Guide to Gender Identity


21
Jul 09

A Homosexual Bishop?

The linked blog is called “Mystic Call” and the blogger. Carmen Rose is pretty spectacular in my book! I keep reading through her post to try and find a short passage to excerpt here, but trying to select one over another is proving difficult. This is a valued read for anyone, believer or non-believer.

I want to draw attention to the comment by DrDave. I’l acknowledge that it is hard- for obviously both this guy and the writer heard the same sermon, and I deid not. But I can’t help but get the impression that they really didn’t hear the same sermon, not really. Or I’m left to wonder if DrDave is just being dismissive. It is easy to consider that for DrDave, the Church is all right, just the way it is (or was before there was a gay bishop), but that may not adequately reflect his POV. Still he doesn’t address what is needed within the Church because it has listened to/ is listening to false teachers.

This notion of false teachers is such an interesting one. The apostle Paul didn’t get a very warm reception by Jesus’s followers, especially those who had supposedly walked with Jesus. Jesus himself was seen as a false teacher by the established “Church” of his time. We only view it differently today after many decades of hindsight, and given that God isn’t talking through burning bushes any more, we may still have it all wrong and not even know it.

Please read her blog entry. I highly recommend it.

Mystic Call: A Homosexual Bishop?.


14
Jul 09

Episcopal Church Overwhelmingly Approves Pro-LGBT Measure | Asterisk

At the General Convention of the Episcopal Church yesterday, the House of Deputies overwhelmingly approved a resolution overriding a three-year hold on election of LGBT bishops. The 2006 resolution was a response to the consecration of BishopGene Robinson,

Episcopal Church Overwhelmingly Approves Pro-LGBT Measure | Asterisk.


12
Jul 09

Gay bashing in the Holy Bible

If we asked many queers what the Bible had to say when it comes to gay bashing, most might point to the well known scriptures such as Leviticus that are condemning of homosexuality. but there is a New Testament scripture that gives a whole new perspective to it. Matthew 5:22.

I found this when I was looking up the wikipedia definition of “gay bash.”  The entry there talks about an idea presented in Byrne Fone’s book, Homophobia: A History:

The word Raca is often translated as “fool”, and sometimes refers to one who deserves to be spat upon, or was sometimes used to insult homosexuals. If this is the case, then Jesus is warning of hell fire for those who engage in verbal gay bashing as part of the Sermon on the Mount, and the warning is even harsher than Jesus’ pronouncement about murder in Matthew 5:21. The most common view is that Raca is a reference to the Aramaic word reka (see also Aramaic of Jesus), which literally means empty one, probably referring to empty headed, or foolish. The word translated as fool is Moros which has a similar meaning to the Aramaic reka, but it can also be used to mean godless, and so was a much stronger term. Some writers[who?] have argued that raca can mean effeminate and moros referring to a homosexual aggressor, and so Jesus could here be seen to be condemning homophobia. Halsall repeats this argument but concedes that it is less than conclusive.[1] Dr. Ralph Blair discounts this theory writing, “Biblical scholars say that the term probably means “empty headed” (Argyle, deDietrich, Filson, Gundry), “hollow head” (Luz), “blockhead” (Jeremias), “imbecile” (Hill) “brainless idiot” (Barclay), “idiot” (Guelich).” He goes on to write, “The editors of the New Revised Standard Version call it “an obscure term of abuse” and elect to render the text: “if you insult a brother or sister”.”[2]

This is interesting for numerous reasons. We know that there is no scripture where Jesus addresses homosexuality at all. This lack of any condemnation by Jesus can’t really be understood as an affirmation of homosexuality, but it is telling none the less. That Biblical scholars have denied that this passage could have anything to do with homosexuality isn’t the least bit surprising. People tend to see in scripture what they want to see.

Gay bashing – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


12
Jul 09

Sunday, July 12, 2009 Bible Reading

Welcome to a Queer Look at the Bible!

This week’s lectionary readings:

This week’s QP:

  • Reading from the Hebrew Scriptures (Christian Old Testament) 2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19:1Rainbow (A very little bit Gay)
  • Reading from the Psalms: Psalm 24 or Psalm 85:8-13 1Rainbow
  • Reading from the Epistles: Ephesians 1:3-14: 1Rainbow (Not Gay at all!)
  • Reading from the Gospels: Mark 6:14-29: 21Rainbows (Not Gay at all!)

Overall QP: 1Rainbow. Not very Gay overall

Notes or References:

Book: Jonathan Loved David, by Thomas Horner

Book: What the bible Really Says about Homosexuality, by Daniel Helminiak

? Both of these books have been around for a while and are good resources. I have met Daniel Helminiak and he is a great guy.

Next Week’s Readings:

Play