DC Catholic Church to End Service to the Poor because of Homophobia
November 17, 2009
National monument, or secret effort of the century-long homosexual plot to take over Washington DC?
If one were cynical, one might be tempted to think that the Catholic archdiocese of Washington was attempting to coerce leaders into putting a stop on a bill that would legalize gay marriage in the District of Columbia. But since we’re never cynical ’round these parts of the web, we’ll just go with the official line from the church: “we are afraid that gays might infiltrate our ranks, or that we might have to be nice to them and offer them blankets.”
Right, so anyway, the Catholic church is threatening to stop all service to the poor of Washington DC if the bill legalizing gay marriage is passed. This bill also requires any organization which uses city money to not discriminate against homosexuals. The church is afraid that if they continue to partner with the city to run 1/3 of DC’s homeless shelters that they would be required to hire gay people to work in those shelters (because there’s a huge line of queers knocking down Catholic Charities’ door with job applications) , they’re also afraid that they might have to–God forbid–extend their poverty relief and adoption services to gay people (gayness is contagious, it’s in the Bible).
Allowing gays to be part of the Catholic church or any church would, of course, be a serious reversal of the status quo (as it stands there aren’t any gay catholics, or gay bible college students), but are they really willing to walk away from Jesus (personified in the least of these) over it? In the words of Stephen Colbert, “After all, Jesus said, ’If you want to be perfect sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor…unless a couple of dudes register at the Pottery Barn, in which case f**k the poor.’”
I’m all for making a moral stand on some things (probably not this thing, but some things), but when your moral stand means you have to move from the sheep section to the goat section of Matthew 25, is it still moral, or is it just a stand?
What The Hell Is A Post Evangelical Tea Party?
July 31, 2009
A simple google search for “post evangelical” will return a plethora of commentary on the term (some of my favorites: the very straight forward wikipedia entry, the standby internetmonk, an open source theology thread from 2003, and our fellow ccblogger notes from off center).
It would be very silly of me to launch into a comprehensive series of posts on the idea when so much has already been explained by those more capable (and internet savvy). However, the term displays prominently at the top of our blog right next to ‘tea party’ as if we all sit around counting doilies and discussing Mr. Darcy all day long and as far as I can tell, we’ve never actually sussed out just what that means.
I am especially guilty since it would seem I consistently use this slippery word as an adjective for my position on various issues right now and just smile coyly to myself as people sitting across from me as they scramble to figure out if that’s a postmodern, emergent, postdenomentational missional thing or whether I just made it up on the spot. (In truth, it gives me an inherent sense of superiority to be “post” whatever the person is whom I’m discussing things with. Post-girlfriend anyone?)
For some odd reason probably having something to do with either Shawn Wamsley or my slick redo of our sidebar, our traffic has increased in recent weeks and I’m delighted that many of our new readers and commenters come from worldviews outside the Christian sphere. If you’re new and reading this, I hope this post is useful for you.
Everyone who contributes to this blog came to Christianity in an Evangelical movement in the United States. None of us have remained.
This is the simplest use of the term on this blog and if nothing I say after makes any sense, I suggest we just stick to it. Some of us have found new movements to join, some have left conventional Christianity altogether and others are lost somewhere in the clouds.
Our reasons for leaving are as variable as our tastes in beer, which is to say, surprisingly not quite so varied—however, full of tiny quirks unique to our own persons. Shamelessly borrowing formatting from the wikipedia article because I’m on vacation and too tired to be creative on my own, I’d like to list some of these frustrations to which many of us can attest (I’ve also decided to add Exclamation points because most of us live in Minnesota where people really don’t show enough emotion):
1. Politicization of Faith!
The G Dub years were hard for me. I was a loyal supporter before I could even vote but by the end of his eight year reign, I couldn’t figure out why people kept telling me he was Christian, and why that necessarily meant I had to vote for him. An astute reader of the blog might observe that we still discuss our political convictions using Christian rationale, just often from the other pole. I would counter that such explanations are often more complicated than simple blind “good vs. evil” comparisons and that likely a particular politician we might support involves our reasoning of “shared goals” rather than “shared convictions.”
2. Unreasonable view of Scripture!
One of the two issues on this blog that will never quite go away. I don’t have much to add here. Look around, you’ll find it.
3. Inadequate Response to Homosexual Christians!
The other of the two issues that is never far from our recent comments list. There are a variety of stances on this issue on our blog—which is something, I’m proud of.
4. Militant Exclusivism and Preoccupation with Eschatology!
For those of us who grew up in a church or movement with a vibrant missions or Evangelistic focus, this issue remains difficult. Just what does it mean to share the good news? Am I accountable if I don’t “witness” to every single person I meet? Does hell exist? Are Christians the only people who go to “heaven.” And just what is heaven? And hey, what about my Muslim friends, I like them and I think that their faith is pretty cool and I’d rather they don’t change to be completely honest. Can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it?
5. Emphasis on Personal Piety over Social Responsibility!
Disgusted by mega church opulence and prosperity nonsense, post evangelicals are afflicted by the tension between holiness and justice. Maybe those hippies who joined the Peace Corps instead of the missions trip were on to something. And seriously, just how does my memorizing another scripture verse help people dying from Malaria in Africa?
6. Disconnect From Church History!
I’ve discussed this elsewhere. Old stuff matters and Evangelicals seemed determined to separate themselves from it.
7. Separatism and Alternative Culture!
More a personal pet peeve of mine. I can’t stand alternative Christian culture, music, movies, books etc… I find it to be a cheesy and crude attempt at unnecessary and harmful separation from “the world.” Seriously, why are Christians so weird?
8. Other Stuff!
Which I’m sure you guys will add in the comments.
Finally adding “tea party” to our blog tag line was really a throwaway thing I did when first designing the site. I suppose you could say its lighthearted or a reference to our mutual friendships and enjoyment of imbibing things but really, I just threw it in there on a whim.
Now I Know How it Feels
June 7, 2009
Let me start by saying I’ve been mulling over whether or not I should even post this. First of all, I don’t want to keep pouring salt in a wound that I know we’ve worked over many times here at theophiliacs. At the same time, I really think there’s value in looking at things from a different perspective. With that in mind, I only ask that we keep any discussion that follows friendly. We all know what each of us believes, for the most part, so I’m not here to prove a point, just to present a point of view.
* * *
Over the Easter weekend I decided to take the family to Duluth for a much needed break. It still feels weird that I can say “the family” and mean my wife and baby girl. We flew into Minneapolis where we were met by your resident heretic, Jeremy, and his wife, and drove up north together.
We stayed at Fitger’s Inn, which is an old brewery whose upper floors have been converted into guest rooms and suites, and still has a brewery in the lower levels. You can sample their many brews on tap, and buy some to take home if you like. This was the part of the trip that catered to Jeremy and I.
On Saturday morning the ladies wanted to go antiquing out and about downtown Duluth, the part of the trip that catered to the two of them. Now antiquing is a strange pass-time that involves finding old junk you like, among room-fulls of even more old junk, all of which which people have somehow decided is now worth a considerable amount of money, as opposed to fifty-odd years ago when our grandparents tossed most of these items into the everything’s-a-quarter-box at a yard sale. That old cracked plate with the blue pattern your aunt Tilly gave to the Salvation Army is now a hundred-fifty-dollar piece of history. Go figure.
Anyway, we were already out and about town when the ladies sprung this idea on us men. When it became clear it would not be a good idea to lug the baby stroller inside these antique stores because of how cramped they can be, the ladies turned to us with their best smiles and asked if we would like the pleasure of walking around downtown Duluth with a baby.
Now stop for a moment. Picture it; from all outward appearances, Jeremy and I would look like an interracial … well, gay couple … pushing around a baby that we obviously could not have … ‘made’ on our own. This image popped into my head, but I pushed it aside and thought, no way it could be that bad. Could it?
You might be surprised.
We walked around for a while, but the wind off Lake Superior was cold, so we eventually found a diner. The waitress seemed confused when we said we needed a table for two. I think I said something like, “Oh, and the baby, of course.” But it became obvious she was expecting a party of three or four. She sat us down anyway, right next to the entrance, which struck me as a good idea. If things got out of hand, we could dart for the door, I thought.
Then we ordered port, which was mistake number… oh I dunno, probably 5 or 6 by then, I wasn’t keeping track.
So we sat, sipping port in a diner, just the two of us, more than aware of the mounting curiosity growing behind our backs, getting the occasional well-I-never glances. The tension was palpable.
Then the baby started fussing like crazy, and it struck me she was teething, which she’d just started a couple weeks before. My wife just happened to have the Oral Gel for babies stuff in her purse. With her. In the Antique store. Meaning she’d have to bring it to us.
I saw the silver lining and called her right away. She found us in the diner and oh man, you could feel the atmosphere shift. For all intents and purposes, my wife showing up produced a collective sigh of relief. Suddenly the waitress wasn’t stumbling over her words. Suddenly the other couples in the restaurant felt more at ease, commenting on how cute the baby was. The world was right again and maybe we wouldn’t be going to Hell in a hand-basket after all.
* * *
Now I honestly don’t know what it would be like to deal with that sort of attention day in and day out. I don’t know if one could even stay in an environment like that. I do know that I could hardly take twenty minutes of it and I was more than relieved to have everyone know I was straight and married and the baby belonged to us, if only so my friend and I could have a conversation without the fear that we might be facing a lynch-mob by the time the check arrived.
Sadly, I know this actually reveals a level of prejudice on my part, too. True, it shouldn’t matter. But something was fueling the growing sense of judgement in that diner that only my wife showing up could effectively extinguish. That makes me sad for them, but disgusted with myself. As much as I say I’m open minded and tolerant and loving, I couldn’t stand the suspicious looks and glances for a matter of minutes. How revealing.
So I don’t know what the right answer is. I’m not promoting and agenda with this post, or saying to vote this way or that, or telling churches to change their stances. I’m just saying if we stopped for a moment and considered how our many opinions and thoughts on such a complex issue as this might come across to someone outside our particular sphere, we might be surprised how we’re being perceived. This is not an ‘us and them’ discussion, and as such it is with great care, not hastily formed blanket statements and generalities, that the dialogue must be handled, if one intends to make any progress.
And you know, I commend my fellow theophiliacs contributors for doing just that.
Prop 8 Ruling Today: An Interesting Perspective
May 26, 2009
So I’d heard that the state senate here in California ruled on Prop 8 today. I Googled the topic to find out what had been decided. Turns out they upheld the ban on gay marriage.
During my search, I came across this interesting perspective: link. I’ve included an excerpt below, the part that really got my attention, but I encourage you to read the entire linked article. It’s really very good, and it’s not very long.
Excerpt:
“… Jehovah’s Witnesses vehemently oppose same-sex marriage on moral and Biblical grounds. Gays are not allowed to be Witnesses unless they live celibate and single lives. Members who insist on being in a same-sex relationship are shunned by the congregation. But none of the million Jehovah’s Witnesses in the U.S. supported Prop 8 because the religion mandates staying out of politics and culture wars.”
“… They don’t amend the constitution to force everyone to live their way. State laws are not needed to legitimize their moral views. Witnesses don’t see the state as an enforcer of a moral code. That’s the Bible’s job, they say. If you want to be in God’s Kingdom, simply live the code yourself – it’s not the Witnesses’ mission to enact laws to stop gays from marrying.”
“Some religious organizations are celebrating a restriction of rights for a minority they disagree with – making themselves the future target of an equally discriminatory people’s amendment. Because Prop 8 diminished the court’s protective role, there will be nothing they can do other than realize they should have been more careful about what they wished for.”
So, I wonder if, in the long run, this really *is* a win for those backing the ban. Thoughts?
Rights and Rhetoric: Refining the Conversation
May 26, 2009
This post may or may not finally finish off my recent adventure into gay-christian territory. I hope here to sort of reveal where I was going with the previous posts, which might not seem to go anywhere. But, often I’ve found that when certain restraints and convictions are asked of gay-christians, there is a knee-jerk reaction that what is being asked is nothing short of re-living slavery. This has baffled me as what is usually said is nothing extreme and is nothing that is not asked of every Christian. Which is why I wanted to start where I did, talking about Christians in general and now asking ‘gay’ questions in light of the whole Church. I hope this post will not be seen as my ‘stance’ as it really is not aiming to come to a conclusion at all on the discernment of gay people in the Christian community: Rather, it is aimed at refining the conversation. We begin with a consideration of some of the language that surrounds this debate.
“Rights”
Often those in favour of changing the Church’s historic position on sexuality claim that we are “denying the right” of ‘marriage’ as long as we refuse to proclaim blessings on SSU’s. My question is…”What Rights?” A mini political history lesson quickly reveals that the concept of individual “rights” is a very recent invention. Roughly from the birth America and the French Revolution. It’s origins are secular and political. Indeed several of our country’s “founding fathers” were reticent about using the concept with religion. Benjamin Franklin thought that using “God” to secure rights “stunk of the pulpit.” But in declaring our independence, we used to language of “God” giving every human certain “rights.”
That we should use this language in the Church is sad, but indicative of the severe difficulty in separating out nationalism (however right it is to be a good citizen, and grateful of our way of life) from our Christian loyalties. In being baptized by faith and the Holy Trinity into the people of God, we are brought down into Christ’s death, rising to new life and new citizenship (a new “Lord”). In this new citizenship, we are not all given “rights” to have whatever we desire. cf.I Corinthians 12
14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
We are all of us called and gifted to be and do specific things in the Church. And not being called to be a certain ‘member’ does not mean that we are being deprived of rights. Are monks and nuns being oppressed because they do not have the “right” of marriage? Are Roman Catholic priests also so deprived? (perhaps they should open up to Scriptural truths on this matter, but that is a side issue), are those called to lay-celibacy, et al.?
I think we can see here the language of “equality” also falls into disrepair. Such as “marriage equality.” I think that a Wittgensteinian critique of our language would show that “equality” used in this way is essentially using the language and ideas of “rights” and conflating it with a different word thereby confusing both. It seems that by “equal” we mean something like “all given exactly the same opportunities.” That this is not how the Church works should be clear by my last post where I briefly went through some of the different functions of Christians in the Body.
“Who I am:”
This can be a sensitive issue, so I hope I will be read generously here and readers will grasp what exactly I am trying to say. It is often said that “gay Christians cannot help who they are.” This seems to me to be true. It is a small percentage of people who can “change” their inclinations (I’ve said this before). Many pray and pray to be “delivered” and never are, and because they are not properly accepted in the Church this leads to depression, anger, and a great assortment of problems which really are tragic. AND, I think that this aspect of the conversation should be included in the listening and discernment process. What the Church is currently discerning is whether or not this aspect of our identity is to be affirmed. But, it is not itself a fully sufficient argument. For the simple reason that, as the desert fathers pointed out (and Rowan demonstrated in his book), we are not universally affirmed in Christ, rather we are absolutely accepted on account of grace. There are parts of us, deep parts of us, parts which seem to be irreducibly essential to who we are, which need to be turned over to transformation. We could perhaps recall in Voyage of the Dawntreader where Eustice as a dragon needs Aslan to truly shed his dead skin. Or what of the lifelong struggle of most men with lust? It certainly seems a huge part of who I am.
“Inclusivity”
Another word used to marginalize traditionalists is “inclusive.” The rhetoric implies that those who do not support SSU’s are “not inclusive.” This can be a rather serious accusation as “inclusivity” is truly a powerful part of the Gospel, whereby all who trust in Christ regardless of x,y, and z are included in his universal reign. This is at the heart of the truth and power of the Resurrection.
Now, it is absolutely true that ‘conservatives’ have simply failed to allow this truth to ring true for gay Christians. There always seems to be a yes/but message to gay people. “Yes you can be a Christian, but you better stop being gay and start believing what I tell you before you can be a real and active member of the Church.” This is sin plain and simple, and I don’t deny that.
But the conversation is not really about “inclusivity” and here again I feel that the language used doesn’t serve a proper dialectic purpose. Looking again at my last post I hope something should be glaringly obvious.
Gay people already are and should be completely included in almost the whole list! That is, without the Church changing its historic position gay Christians can already minister as laity, deacon, priest, bishop, and religious.
Refining the conversation:
If what I have been saying has any merit, and it seems to me that it does, then the conversation needs refining. The question is not whether gay Christians should be “fully included,” or given “equal rights,” or that “who they are” is inevitable and beyond the hope of transformation: Instead the conversation, I think, should ask this question:
Are those gay Christians not called to lay, clerical or religious celibacy, called then to have homo-sexual relationships? Are they to be “marrige” traditionally concieved? Or are they to be alternatively directed?
I have indicated where I find myself, but having a risen and living Lord require that I always allow myself to stand in judgement under him, so that even my firm beliefs can be transformed by his Word. Or, more simply, I will always participate in conversation.
Some (more) Thoughts on Church
May 19, 2009
Rather than going headlong into talking about ‘homosexuality’ I want to go a rather different route than I am used to seeing in these kinds of conversations. Usually we jump right into the gay boat, with all sorts of loaded questions and assumptions. Which inevitably leads down the road where the two sides get fixed again into a trench. Also, there are certain weasel words that creep into the venacular: words like “equality” “(full) inclusion” “rights” etc….
Instead I want to speak briefly of the Church, concieved as a whole, of those members who the Spirit has gifted and equipped in different ways. I suspect I will say almost nothing controversial or new, but that’s the point.
In Ephesians Paul (yes I think it’s Paul, now the “pastorals” are a different story) sets out the grand vision of God plan now revealed. In chp.3 he proclaims the Gospel which till this time had been ‘hidden’ awaiting the right time. Then he begins to show how this plan is worked out in the Church. So we see in chp.4 a sort of ad hoc list of giftings that Christ gives to his people. A similar list shows up in 1 Corinthians 12-14. To go through each ‘gift’ systematically would, I think, betray the way in which Paul writes. He is certainly not meaning that these are the only gifts of Christ to his people, otherwise the lists might have needed to have been identical! Rather the point is that the holiness bestowed on every Christian in unique, and unity comes when these giftings are put to use for the building up and training of the Church for the purpose of mission (“for the work of ministry”).
What are some of the callings and gifts that we see in the Church? (I am presupposing some sort of hierarchical structure, even if in many protestant churches it is not a sacramental role)
Well, for most Christians there is the four-fold ministry of laypersons, deacons, priests, and bishops.
Lay: Most Christians will work their whole lives in the wider realm of the world. This should not be seen as an absence of a calling. Indeed, in many traditions, lay people can be amongst the greatest theologians, teachers, servants, etc… in the Church. Think of all the great monastic thinkers who refused ordination, and how they shaped the whole of Christian thought. Perhaps this as a ‘category’ is much too broad. Within this sphere we see the great diversity of the Spirit working itself out for the building of the Church and the proclaimation of the Gospel. It is no mean calling to not be called to what we might think of as “ordained” ministry.
Deacons: In most Christian traditions, both men and women, married and celibate can be deacons. This holds true even in Eastern Orthodoxy, and some are pushing for a renewal of women in the diaconate in this venerable tradition. It would be hard to pin down what this means outside the context of the various bodies, but we might think of it as a sort of intensified lay ministry. In many Evangelical churches, deacons guide the parish in making financial decisions, and even help decide who will be their next pastor. In many liturgical traditions, deacons are able to perform many liturgical functions that “ordinary” laypeople are not allowed to do. This seems to me to be a rather neglected role in the Church, one which I hope will fill out and be renewed.
Priest/Pastor: Of course this does not need much explaining. Pastors are the shepherds of the people, a focus of unity in a parish, the one who can perform the Holy Eucharist and/or the one responsible for preaching and oh so much more. As a Pastor’s Kid I could wax eloquent but I won’t.
Bishop: The big poopa. The continuity with the Apostles, the focus of unity, the person who allows for worldwide mission and encouragement.
Monastic Orders: Metropolitan Kallistos Ware said in his great little book on Orthodoxy that “renewal always comes from the monastics.” Unfortunately this is not a visible aspect of Church life in most Protestant communities. Indeed, in all but a few it is non-existant. This is a shame, and might perhaps shed some light on the current issue in question. Monastic orders constantly remind the Church of aspects of itself that it cannot as a whole yet attain. Priests have the parish, Bishops the diocese, but monks and nuns have only prayer and service. They are in many ways the “foot soldiers” of the Church. They do everything from intercessary prayer, to seminary and school teaching, caring for the poor, missions, and theologize. It is my hope that “New Monasticism” will be able to accomplish for Protestantism what traditional orders have done for the Church through history. Did I mention that they make killer beer?
Marriage: Christian marriage has developed theologically to be a sacramental sign on earth of the creative wisdom of God, an abiding witness to the way of the earth to produce and sustain life, a sort of mirror of the faithful and free love of the Holy Trinity. I speak here of “Christian” marriage and not “biblical” marriage, as Tony so aptly and sarcastically pointed out, there are various “biblical” marriages.
I’m not trying to be exhaustive, but it seems that most everyone fits into one or more of these sections. It should be a point of praise that God so generously gives so many gifts and roles to fill up what is needed to point to a new humanity in relation to Christ. There are no “Renaissance men” needed in the Body of Christ.
It seems to me that there are some questions and comments that flow out of this simple exposition. More on that with the next post.
Some Thoughts on The Church
May 8, 2009
Well, as it so often happens online, certain topics get latched onto and engage more conversation than others. I guess it’s my fault since I posted this piece, which sparked this piece, then this one. Well now it has progressed, and before I move on with my seminary pieces I wanted to weigh in again on homosexuality, especially “marriage.”
I believe that this issue is easily and quickly gets entered into haphazardly and without a systematic approach, so I hope with my posts not to “seal the deal” so to speak, but I want to dust out the cobwebs of what seem to me to be lazy arguments, manipulative language, and un-theological frameworks of discussion.
But first, I want to start with a defense of the homosexual Christian. The reason that I want to do this is because I think that until gay Christians are free from the sin and hypocrisy of homophobia in the Church then I always want to assure them that I am not “out to get them.” So much Christian damage has been done on this because of what I feel to be reactionary fear-filled rhetoric and just plain immature and unChristlike “ick” factors.
I take it to be true that:
- Of course, a gay Christian is not “half” or “3/4” of a Christian. That is, by faith, baptism, faithful partaking of the Sacraments, and faithfulness to the Church’s teaching there should be no question of a “lesser” status.
- Any person who by fear, ignorance, hatred, immaturity or any other reason, ends up communicating anything less than the piercing love of God in Jesus Christ to a gay person has done what Christ condemned when he said that those who cause siblings to stumble are in a heap of trouble. There should be no “but” attached to any soteriology, either what Christ has done is what he has done, or we all have to start earning our salvation.
- Any speaking of gay relationships means ONLY completely faithful monogamous relationships. The Church’s teaching is that sex outside of marriage, regardless of “love,” is out of bounds.
- “How can I be wrong if I’m so sincere” is not a Christian maxim.
- Words and abstractions like “love” must be drawn from larger scopes of Scripture than the Johannine Corpus alone, and even these must take exegesis and proper theological interpretation into authoritative account. Christian theo-logia must be set within a Christian framework so that words and concepts do not lose their meaning.
- Just like those in favor of accepting homosexuality get to ask the hard questions, hard questions must be addressed to them in a thoughtful and respectable manner consistent with Christian charity otherwise this whole conversation is a conversation about emotions.
Having said that, and meaning every word, I want to move on to start clearing brush. And I want to get at this by a different route than is normally taken. Before I mention anything about homosexuals and the Church, I want to speak first of Christians. How is “diversity” and “different gifts” meant? How does the Body function? And how are people “equal and unequal?” Are these appropriate terms to be using? How has the surrounding culture perhaps warped our understanding of the Kingdom and our responsibilities?
We will cover a lot of ground, but I hope the end will refine the conversation, on this site at least.
Tony Hunt
jstambaugh
Shawn Wamsley
