(The following is a speech that I plan to give on the floor of a meeting of Providence Presbytery on March 12 in Lancaster, SC.  A Presbytery is a regional governing body in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and each one is voting this year, as they have several times over the past 15 years, on the issue of the ordination of homosexuals.) 

If you’ve ever wondered why there are so few people my age at these Presbytery meetings, and if you’ve ever wondered why it’s so difficult to attract and keep young adults in the pews of our congregations, it’s partly because of this.  If you talk to young adults who don’t go to church - which is most of them - they will tell you that the church is out of touch and has its priorities mixed up.

To put it bluntly, they’re put off by all the in-fighting over issues of sexuality.  It’s just not what’s most important to them.  Right now, young adults in particular are struggling in this economic crisis.  There are very few good jobs available for them.  As a result, record numbers are moving back in with their parents, and there is a growing sense of anger and frustration that they might never get the opportunities at starting real careers that people in older generations took for granted.  Many feel that they have done everything they were told they needed to do in order to be successful, but are finding that jobs in fast food and retail are their only viable options.  

It’s a huge problem that is out there that will have many unforeseen repercussions, but in large part we’re missing it - because we’ve lost this generation of Americans who have come to believe that the church is outdated and irrelevant.  To many young adults, all the church cares about is who is sleeping with whom, and even though we all know that the church is about a lot more than that, that’s largely the perception that is out there.

And of course, it’s not just young adults who are interested in hearing more than that from the church.  The whole nation is struggling.  The whole nation is worried.  The whole nation is scared.  In the coming months and years, we are going to see physical and spiritual needs that outstrip every program, ministry, and institution that we have worked so hard to build.  In many ways, people are going to be looking not just for assistance, but for a new vision of what life in America could and should be like.  The church is in a prime position to help provide that vision.

But right now, what does the world see when it looks at the church?  A few weeks ago, I was watching the local news.  There were a number of stories about the economic crisis - layoffs, foreclosures, rising costs - story after story about good, hard-working people having their lives devastated.  And then, just before the commercial break, came the teaser for the next segment.  It was about Charlotte Presbytery’s vote on the same issue.  It said, “Presbyterians vote on gay pastors.”  The nation is bleeding.  And we’re still arguing about homosexuality.

So far at today’s meeting, we have seen vigorous debate from both sides of the gay ordination fight.  But we’ve heard little or no mention of the economic crisis.  Shouldn’t it be the main thing, if not the only thing, that we’re talking about?  Especially since we’re one of the most affluent denominations? 

Therefore, I’m abstaining from this vote as the only way I know how to protest what I and most of my generation feels is a denomination that has lost touch.  And after the vote is done, I will make a motion that we as a Presbytery agree not to debate the matter of gay ordination for at least four years, and that we make the economic crisis a top priority on each agenda during the years 2009 and 2010.  Thank you.”

These autumn months have been long and rolling. I have been used up while driving, challenged to fights, and run down by wild mares. I have sought a viable third party and witnessed a sexy dentist drilling into my tooth. Wicked lucid dreams have left me tempered many mornings with feelings of guilt and doubt and my bed smells so different. Now I am not one to make demands nor am I someone who makes a fuss. But I think I want a small dog to keep me company and to be free from here on out. Please all you people put Chester Himes on your reading list.

The other night, I posted this headline on the “politics” section of Reddit:  “Vote up if you’re a religious person and you fully support marriage and adoption rights for gays.  We need to show that not all people of faith are bigots.”

Much to my surprise, the post immediately began to receive down votes and negative comments.  When I asked why, this remarkable conversation ensued.  It involved myself (”J”) and another “Redditor” I’ll call “R”.  At first, the discussion was hostile and defensive, but the more we talked, the more we realized that we are not enemies.  We certainly have some differences on the issue of religion and gay rights, but we discovered by the end of the conversation that we are standing on the same side of the struggle. 

This is the type of conversation spiritual and secular progressives need to be having.  To learn more about an event called “Progressive Summit”, which seeks to bring these two groups to the table, check out this Facebook Group.

(Note: Because of the way comments on Reddit function, the following is a compilation of several comment threads that developed under this post.)

J:  Could someone please explain to me why this post has been so quickly downmodded?

R:  You need to show us with actions, not words. Pull out of the churches. It’s the funding that moderate Christians give each Sunday that is used to fund political actions such as the ‘yes on eight’ campaign.  You personally might not be a bigot, but you knowingly fund the bigots.  Until that changes you’re not changing anything. You act nice, expecting everyone to say, “You’re not to blame, we were wrong about all Christians,” but then the next sunday you’ll put money in the collection plate and it goes straight to the people you call bigots.

J:  I’m sorry, but you are wrong. As a pastor, I know very well where my church’s money goes, and none of it goes to support things like Prop 8. In fact, it goes to support a denomination which is in the process of approving the ordination of gays.  Please stop generalizing and making assumptions about all Christians because some have chosen to act out of bigotry. You are practicing a form of bigotry yourself.

R:  You are currently defending the Christians who were involved, making you an accomplice after the fact. You may not have done the deed personally, but you are perpetuating the problem by protecting the people responsible. That’s why people think all Christians are a unified group…Christians automatically defend the ’separate group of Christians’ who wronged the community. I am really, truly, deeply looking forward to seeing some actions to show you are going to side with the opressed and not the oppressors. Until then your words are an empty gesture.

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

R:  So we’re past words here, it’s time for you to act. If you want to actually help solve the problem of religions being used to operate and fund projects like the “yes on eight” campaign, then leave the church in protest over it. Let that be your message, that Christianity should not be a lobby group, it should be about Jesus and the good news.

J:  Not all churches support Prop 8. In fact, many of us are working hard for gay rights within our denominations. Mine, the PCUSA, is in the process of approving the ordination of gays. Christians are a very diverse group of people, a fact which is often overlooked in these heated political debates.

R:  My point is simple. You say you oppose these people, but we see you attacking their critics. But there is no proof you opposed poposition 8 before or after it passed. So all we have are words, when we want to see actions (they speak louder). Something like that, people could see it and rally behind it. Words alone…you’re another voice telling us we’re not allowed to criticize any Christian denomination for any reason.

J:  I’m all for you criticizing the churches that supported Prop 8. I’ll give you some Scipture to use against them, if you’d like.

R:  Tempting. ^_^

J:  John 3:16 - “Whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Whosoever is a word that excludes no one.

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

R:  As long as there is any basis in Christianity for opposition to homosexuality (e.g., Leviticus, Romans - Bible!), anti-gay beliefs and actions will be propagated. Either change Christianity’s book or drop it altogether.

J:  There is plenty of Scriptural basis for affirming gay rights - starting with “love your neighbor.” Myself, I prefer the “meta-narrative” - the overall story of the Bible that is about God’s radical love and acceptance of all human beings - a fact which was reflected in the the life of Jesus Christ.  But I’m not trying to convert anyone here. I’m just trying to show that many Christians are for gay rights and are taking plenty of action to make it happen.

R:  I don’t buy it. What gives you the license to interpret the Bible to your own ends? Either way, most Christians stick to their guns because they were told by Christian leaders or directly by the book (not that it speaks), that homosexuality is wrong. There’s no excusing Christians or Christianity for their role in propagating bigotry.  I’m not saying that I criticize you personally for fighting for gay rights - you’d be a good Canadian and we’d welcome you. But at the same time, please try to understand that Christianity’s never going to get a pass for its intolerances, implicit or explicit.

I must start this article with three disclaimers:  First, I am a Presbyterian minister, and so I naturally will be put on the defensive by someone who attacks the Christian faith as unabashedly as does Bill Maher.  Second, since it is not being shown in my local community (York County, SC), I have not had a chance to see his new film, Religulous.  Third, I actually like Bill Maher and think he is a great political satirist.  I have been enjoying his work while overlooking his anti-Christian prejudice since his days on Politically Incorrect.

In fact, when Maher appeared on The Daily Show last Wednesday, he made some very good points about how religion and politics have become too intertwined in the United States:

Faith is such a magic word in this country.  When someone says, “That’s my faith,” then all bets are off. 

When a person runs for president in the United States of America, he has to say he is a religious person.

But as soon as Maher made a reasonable point, he seemed to follow it up with a series of malicious slams on people of faith.

Religulous.  It’s a word we made up, much like religion itself.

If you rant in public the tenets of any religion, it sounds crazy… because it is.  It is crazy to believe in unimpeachable truth.

Christian beliefs, if you think about them, are just the silliest thing you’ve ever heard. 

Religion might give comfort and aid, but it comes at a great price - like almost every war in history, and suicide bombers, and oppression of women and minorities, and having sex with children.

With these statements, Maher has descended to the world view of a snarky seventh-grader pestering his Sunday school teacher with annoying questions.  He sees everything in black and white terms, and is more interested in choosing his side and shooting down the other than in looking for common ground and mutual understanding. 

“Class warfare.”  It’s one of those pejorative terms that conservatives love to throw at their opponents.  Anytime it is suggested that we roll back the Bush tax cut on the wealthy, it’s “class warfare.”  Anytime it’s demanded that the gaping loopholes on business taxes be closed, it’s “class warfare.”  Anytime that the government is asked to do something to alleviate the gap between rich and poor, it’s “class warfare.”  Heck, anytime anything other than complete laissez faire free markets is advocated (other than bailing out failed corporations, of course), the Republican battle cry goes up: “Class warfare!” 

Drenched in Marxist overtones, the term is invoked for a specific purpose: to draw a link in the public’s mind between liberal/progressive economic policies and Marxism, a fallacy which plays on the aging Republican base’s lingering fears of Communist infiltration.   Here’s my advice for countering the “class warfae” misnomer:  Carry a Bible.  And whenever a conservative (especially an evangelical conservative) throws out the term, show them these passages from the Gospel of Luke:

Luke 1:52-53 (Mary, the mother of Jesus, sings about Jesus’ mission) - “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.”

Luke 4:18-19 (Jesus preaching in Nazareth) - “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”  (Note: The “year of the Lord’s favor” refers to Jubilee, a practice where all debts are cancelled and wealth is redistributed.)

Luke 6:20-21 (from the Sermon on the Plain) - “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.  Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled.”

Luke 9:10-17 (The Feeding of the 5000, a story where Jesus takes food from someone who has more than he needs and gives it to those who have no food.)

Luke 12:13-21 (A parable where Jesus denounces a man who builds bigger barns and storehouses instead of sharing his wealth with those in need.)

Luke 18:18-30 (A story where a rich ruler asks Jesus what he must do the be righteous, and Jesus tells him to give away all of his money and possessions to the poor.)

Luke 19:1-10 (A story where a tax collector named Zacchaeus meets Jesus and pledges to give away half of everything he owns to the poor.)

These are just a few of the many examples in Luke and throughout the Bible where it is made clear that Jesus came with an economic message, namely a mandate to eliminate the gross disparity between rich and poor that existed in his time and that persists to this day.  By the definition that the conservatives have established, this makes Jesus the preeminent practitioner of “class warfare.” 

Latin American theologians, speaking for some of the most destitute and most oppressed peoples in the world, call Jesus’ economic message ”preferential option for the poor.”  The North American church has predictably resisted such language, and has pushed instead a theology that underscores the privilege of the powerful and the wealthy - which, as it turns out, is the constituency that the Republicans represent.  Every time they accuse one of their opponents of advocating “class warfare,” they are really advocating the status quo of a system that keeps millions in the United States and billions around the world living in poverty.

I’m thinking of going out and making bumper stickers that read, “Jesus is my class warrior.”  Who wants one?

(cross-posted at Discipline for Justice)

The Christian right has obliterated the line between faith and politics.  They believe with all their hearts that not only is God is on their side, but also that God is against anybody who disagrees with them - which elevates the stakes of each election, each Supreme Court nomination, and even each piece of legislation.  To them, it’s not just a matter of “my opinion versus yours.”  It’s an earthbound struggle between heaven and hell.

That is why we see so much desperation and anger out of the Christian right these days.  Not only are they worried that power is going to shift into the hands of their political opponents.  They fear that the devil himself is poised to take over the country.   

This kind of life-or-death passion for politics is something that the spiritual left needs to capture.  The Christian right has been extremely well organized and has worked very hard in order to make political gains far beyond what their numbers should dictate.  Religious progressives, on the other hand, have almost been driven into the closet, afraid to admit in certain circles that they believe in God or attend a church.  And this damping down of our spiritual side has drained a certain amount of grounding and zeal from the progressive movement.

It has been awhile and I am sorry for all three of you who care for my ludicrous gestures. Something came over me, left a mark, and now has been destroyed. I am in the process of creating a new pseudo persona in an effort to protect myself further.  All Best

Last week, Obama spoke out in favor of expanding Bush’s faith-based initiative program, part of a predictable and consistent move to the center.

“I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular non-profits.  I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up. What I’m saying is that we all have to work together — Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike — to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.”

Naturally, the secular left is not happy about this development.  But neither are many on the spiritual left.  Speaking as a progressive, as an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church (USA), and as someone who has successfully organized a church-based food pantry, I have a message for Obama and any other politician who is making the sacred task of outreach ministry a tool of political pandering:

“Get your hands off my faith-based initiative!  We don’t want any of your government money getting in the way of our work.”  

It’s a bad idea for a number of reasons:

1) Over-Regulation.  The government never just gives you money.  There are always rules and regulations, mountains of paperwork, and any number of hoops to jump through - sometimes they make sense, sometimes they don’t.  This extra work always seems to stand in the way of doing the real work at hand.

2) The Fickle Nature of Politics.  Government funding can get turned on and off like a faucet, depending on the political climate .  Entire agencies can get the ax simply because a new administration comes in with different priorities.  Charities need to depend on consistent money sources that are not politicized.

3) Strings Attached.  There really is no such thing as a free lunch.  Government funding equals a government agenda, and the political issues of the day will certainly affect where the funding goes.  Instead of the meeting the greatest needs of the people, the money will tend to go where it makes the elected officials look best.

4) Separation of Church and State.  This is one area where I agree with atheists.  Looking back through history, it’s clear that when government and religion are in cahoots, bad things tend to happen.  They need to be a check on one another’s power, and the line between them needs to stay crystal clear.  This program blurs that line.

5) A Higher Calling.  Feeding the poor, tending the lame, caring for the widow and the orphan.  These are some of the most sacred tasks for Christians and for other religions.  Using government money to do these tasks is not acceptable.  Individuals are called to give of their time and money because giving is a central part of what we believe.  It is part of building a community that takes care of one another.  Being funded with government money raised through taxation cheapens this noble task.   The government certainly has its role in meeting the needs of the people, but this does not come through doing for the faithful what they should be doing themselves. 

So thanks, Barack, but no thanks.  Our charities are not another pawn in the chess game of this election.

According to the New York Times (free registration required), the Ted Haggard’s New Life Church is having money troubles. Donations have fallen off almost half a million dollars in the last four months, forcing layoffs. Attendance has fallen as well.

“We are in a position where the reality of our financial situation is causing us to look at how we can be more efficient,” [Rob Brendle, associate pastor] said, “and we spent a lot of time thinking and analyzing how best to do that. These are difficult times, and these have been difficult decisions. But the floor of this church has not fallen out.”

Why the hard times? If we believe the church leaders, Ted Haggard was the one “bad apple” in the bunch, and without him the Church is free of sin and able to go about its mission without interference. So why the drop in attendance and donations? I see two possible reasons:

First, perhaps New Life was only about Ted Haggard. Haggard was New Life’s center. He founded the church out of his basement in 1984 and perhaps without his leadership and charisma the money has stopped rolling in. If so, New Life is nothing more than a cult of personality built around Haggard. The drop in attendance and donations says to me that Ted’s evangelical message wasn’t the main driving force, it was Ted himself. Thou shalt not worship false Idols right?

Second, perhaps the ensuing scandal drove people away. If this is the case, I think those former New Life parishioners and givers still aren’t quite getting the message. Why back away from a church if the head pastor is involved in scandal? If the weakness is removed from the leadership, why stop giving? Are the evangelicals in Colorado so unforgiving that they can’t stand to even be loosely associated with Haggard? Or are these Christians so scared of “sin” that they can’t be near something they consider tainted? As I argued when Haggard was first outed and then “cured”, the New Life Church seems to be missing a classic Christian opportunity. With all the publicity this scandal has brought they are in a prime position to spread their message of love and hope and show the world what true Christians they are. Instead, they ask Haggard to leave his church, suggest it would be better for him to move far away, and stop contributing money or attending services. It seems to me they only want what’s pure and are unwilling to get their hands duty and do some real spiritual work, namely saving the souls of those imperfect men among us.

The recent John Edwards blogger debacle, which some are already calling “bloggergate,” is a perfect example of the kind of struggle the spiritual left continuously runs into. Below is a basic rundown of the controversy:

At the end of January, in an aggressive sign of willingness to take the netroots seriously, Edwards hired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, both of whom are highly respected liberal bloggers. What Edwards may or may not have realized, is that Marcotte and McEwen had written a few things in the past, on their personal blogs, that could be considered offensive to some.