The Missing Piece

Awhile back I wrote a post about homosexuality. Near the top of the post I wrote that I'm not convinced that homosexual activity actually is a sin. Today I'd like to write a little bit more about why that is.

First of all, I want to reaffirm that, even if I was sure that it was sinful, I would still have some concerns about how the church approaches the issue. We live in a world where LGBT individuals are frequently abused and in some cases this leads to tragic results.

The church should always be an institution that stands up against such abuse, no matter who the victims are. Sadly, all too often it is the church that is responsible for the abuse. Even when the church isn't explicitly involved, often times Christian teachings are used as an excuse to justify the abuse. This is tragic and the church ought to take a stand against it.

Still, the reason why I'm not convinced it's a sin don't just stem from concern about the affect this belief has on the larger culture. The main reason why I remain unconvinced is because I don't have enough information. I don't have enough information about the relevant parts of scripture to be certain that homosexuality is a sin but, more importantly, I don't have enough information about the behavior itself.

Most sins have obviously harmful repercussions. Sins like murder, adultery, and theft all have consequences for the victims as well as the people who practice them. Other sins don't have any obvious external repercussions, but they still hurt the people who practice them.

If homosexual activity is a sin, it pretty clearly falls into the latter category. It doesn't harm other people in any way (except, obviously, in cases of rape, but that's a separate issue). If it is a sin, it's because it has some kind of detrimental affect on the people who engage in it.

If that is the case, I have no way of knowing, or understanding, what that affect might be. Since I don't experience the temptation myself, it's hard for me to judge whether or not it is a sinful act. I'm missing the most crucial piece of evidence: the affect that homosexual activity has on the people who engage in it.

Without that piece of information I don't feel comfortable passing judgement on people. The way I see it whatever they do, and whatever they experience as a result, is between them, their partner, and God. It is not my place to stand in judgment over them.

On the other hand, the mistreatment of homosexuals at the hands of Christians determined to carry out what they believe the Bible teaches is something I can see. That kind of sin has obvious consequences. While it is still not my place to pass judgment, I have a duty to point out that this behavior is highly destructive. I have an obligation to speak out against it, and to protect anyone who may be harmed by it. This is a responsibility that all Christians share.

Living in Darkness

I try not to write about politics too much on this blog, but from what I've written it should be pretty clear that I lean pretty far to the left (at least, by American standards). I am one of the few liberal, evangelical Christians. Indeed we're so rare that most people consider the phrase "liberal evangelical" to be a contradiction in terms.

I am often frustrated by the prominence of the religious right in America, and the affect they have on how Christianity is perceived. When I found out that Barack Obama was going to run for President, I thought it would be a great thing. I knew that he was Christian, and deeply religious. If he were elected, I told myself, more people would see that there are Christians who care about poverty, the environment, healthcare, and other important issues that the religious right neglects.

What I didn't expect is that almost two years into his Presidency, 18% of the country would believe that he is actually a Muslim, and an even larger number would be unsure of the President's beliefs.

I've read several articles that try to understand how so many people could be so thoroughly mistaken about the President's beliefs. I'm sure a lot of people are simply misinformed. Conservative media and the religious right have put a lot of energy into spreading the lie that Obama is a Muslim.

I am convinced that this isn't simply a matter of ignorance and misinformation. I'm sure that most of the people who claim that Obama is a Muslim have heard him talk about his Christian faith. I'm sure that plenty of them remember the controversy over his former pastor, Jeremiah Wright. They're not ignorant about Obama's professed beliefs. They believe that he is lying about his religious beliefs in order to deceive the American public.

A year ago I wrote about this exact issue. I wrote that it is wrong to accuse people of lying about their religious beliefs. I stand by my original conviction, although I am worried that I didn't phrase my objection strongly enough.

The Apostle John wrote, "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness." When Christians band together to slander our president, a fellow Christian and a brother in Christ, they are surely living in darkness.

The religious right shouldn't be using these kinds of tactics to smear Obama. They should be able to talk about the problems they have with Obama's policies without bringing his religious views into the picture. The fact that they feel the need to resort to these tactics reveals a lot about how many people within the religious right view their faith.

They don't view Christianity as a religion available to anyone, regardless of their culture, politics, ethnicity or nation of origin. Instead they treat Christianity as an exclusive club, where only people with the right credentials are allowed to join, where people all share the same beliefs and opinions.

This kind of exclusive mentality is dangerous. When we have this attitude toward others, it reveals that we don't understand the power of God's forgiveness. Exclusiveness and hatred of fellow believers is also toxic to the faith. It divides Christians against each other and drives people away from Christianity.

Personally, I would love it if more Christians understood the importance of social justice, and became more liberal as a result, but I understand that not every Christian shares my views. I only ask other believers to extend their liberal brothers and sisters the same courtesy.

Growing Up and Getting a Job

I'd like to take a moment to comment on an article I read recently on the New York Times. This article, like many I've read before, tries very hard to answer the question on their readers' minds. What the hell is wrong with young people these days?

They phrase it more politely than that of course, but it's pretty clear what they're driving at. They want to know why young people won't settle down, finish school, find a job, get married, and have kids. I've read dozens of articles in major newspapers with this exact same question, this exact same complaint.

I'm going to focus on the issue of finding a job, because that's the issue I happen to be the most familiar with (and also one of the most common complaints). I also think that most of the other issues are tied in with that one.

This article is actually slightly encouraging in that it acknowledges that the economy is doing poorly, and expecting young people to just go out there and find a job right away isn't exactly realistic. This realization comes a little late in my opinion. Even when the economy was doing well, there was always a real shortage of entry level jobs.

I graduated with a computer science degree in 2005. I was surprised at how little help I received with finding a job. No one pointed me in the direction of companies looking for interns or entry level programmers. Nobody gave me any advice on how to design my resume or interview well. I went online looking for advice, but I found most of it to be either obvious, unhelpful or contradictory.

I applied for several companies that I never heard back from. The one interview I did get didn't go anywhere. Since then I've been applying for programming jobs off and on without any success.

I signed up with a temp agency and managed to get a few different job placements. None of them were amazing jobs, but I would have been glad to stay with them if they had hired me full time. None of them did.

While I was a temp I worked at a lot of different places for a variety of different bosses. Some of them were okay, but some of them were downright capricious. I remember being told by one company that the person I was working for was an impossible man with unrealistic expectations. I wasn't the first person who had been let go with little to no reason, and the HR person was getting frustrated trying to find someone who could satisfy him.

Most of the time I would work hard and finish an assignment much earlier than was expected. My reward for finishing my responsibilities in a timely manner was a swift return to the unemployment line.

At which point I would come home and read another article about how young people are just too lazy to find a job.

As the economic meltdown continues, we're going to have to learn how to solve these problems. If we're ever going to return to full employment, companies are going to have to suck it up and start hiring inexperienced workers. They can't rely on some other company to train their workforce for them.

At the same time, middle aged men and women are going to have to get over their naked hatred of lazy twenty-somethings. They'll have to learn how to put aside their prejudice and understand that, properly employed, we can be valuable and productive members of society. They just need someone pointing them in the direction of a job that needs doing.

I don't think we're going to solve any of these problems anytime soon. I expect this financial crisis will continue for quite awhile. In the meantime I expect that the older generation's disdain for the younger generation will continue unabated. Of course, this disdain is only reinforcing the economic crisis that hurts all of us, but I don't think the older generation has quite figured that out yet.

Here's to hoping they figure it out before unemployment hits 25%.

White Privilege and the Economic Meltdown

I recently read a fascinating article on Facebook. The article talks about the effects of white privilege and how it makes it harder for white Americans to cope with the current recession, at least psychologically. He also talks about why it's important to pursue racial equality, even during a recession.

The article is really good, and I don't have much to add. I recommend reading it first before you read my own reflections.

I wanted to say that the article captures something crucial about human nature. We have a hard time putting others first when our own well being is on the line. When we are under pressure the first thing we give up on is generosity. Kindness and goodwill are luxuries we indulge in only if we are absolutely sure we can afford it, and often times not even then.

Unfortunately, as Tim Wise points out, this selfishness is shortsighted. When we fail to take care of people in need, the whole economy suffers. If we fail to take care of those people who are in need, we will soon find ourselves in need and there might not be anyone to take care of us.

One of the greatest contributions that religion has made in Western civilization, is that it teaches us the importance of loving and caring for others. In particular, Christianity teaches us to value others more highly than ourselves; to love and care for even our enemies. Through religion, we have the belief that taking care of others is always worth the cost.

One of the great scandals of American Christianity is that it has largely abandoned this teaching, especially with regard to racial equality.

There are exceptions of course. The abolitionist movement was championed by Christian activists, as was the early Republican party (which ended slavery in America). The civil rights movement was also championed by African American churches. Still, the majority of American Christians, especially white evangelical Christians, have either ignored or actively supported racial inequality.

This is a tragedy. White evangelical churches are in the best position to deconstruct the mythology surrounding white privilege. Yet most of the time they help to build up the myth that whites are deserving of their privilege. At the same time they ignore the very real racial inequality that persists in this country.

This is one of the main reasons why I am so very out of step with Evangelicals, both socially and politically. I continue to pray that the church will repent, but more importantly, I pray that we, as a Nation, repent of this evil, and begin working to solve the deep injustices that plague our country.

The Upside-Down Cross

Lies have an interesting way of revealing the truth.

Confused? I'll explain.

When a lie spreads through a large group of people, it often reveals a lot about what those people really believe. As an example, I'll talk about a lie that is pervasive through large sections of the American evangelical church.

The lie is this: the peace sign is actually the sign of Nero; a broken, upside-down cross.

In actuality, the peace sign is based on the semaphore signals for N and D, which stand for "Nuclear Disarmament".

What does this lie reveal about the American evangelical church? First, the obvious, it reveals the conservative nature of American evangelicalism. It reveals how deeply rooted their opposition to liberal politics is. They have no problem believing that the peace sign, a common symbol of the anti-war movement in the 60's and 70's, as actually the symbol of the most hated persecutor of Christianity in history.

But it also reveals something else. It reveals that they believe that the message of the cross is diametrically opposed to the message of peace.

So we see that the lie reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about the meaning of the cross. The message of the cross is fundamentally a message of peace. Peace, first of all, between God and humanity, and secondarily, peace among men. (If you don't believe me, consider what Paul said about Jesus.)

Of course, the lie is even more revealing than that. Why would conservative evangelicals feel the need to slander peace activists like this?

The answer is simple, if they don't, then their congregations might consider the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers." They might consider the fact that the call for nuclear disarmament sounds a lot like Jesus' call to turn the other cheek. In other words, they use this lie to make sure that their followers' eyes remain blind to the truth.

The truth is that there is another symbol, one that is easily recognizable, which more accurately fits the label of "upside-down cross". That symbol is the crusader's sword.

First of all, cruciform swords, when held upright, bear a clear resemblance to an upside-down cross. More importantly, however, the crusaders inverted the message of Christ. They took a message of peace of love and used it as a justification for violence and bloodshed. When they drew their swords, they turned the cross upside down, both literally and metaphorically.

This perversion is still alive and well in the church. Men spread the lie that the peace sign is an upside-down cross to obscure the fact that they themselves have turned the cross upside-down. In the words of Greg Boyd, they have fused the cross and the sword.

In my experience, nothing combats a lie more effectively than the truth. If you hear someone calling the peace sign an upside-down cross, please correct them. Also, consider telling people about the true upside-down cross.

More Thoughts on Social Justice

I want to speak a little more about the topic of social justice. I want to talk about what social justice looks like in action.

A woman from my church runs an nonprofit organization called Bridge of Hope. Bridge of Hope works with refugees living in the city heights neighborhood in San Diego. Bridge of Hope provides refugee families with food, furniture, clothing, toys and other supplies. Bridge of Hope supports these families and helps them to adjust to life in America.

What Bridge of Hope does is a great example of social justice. They care for the poor and the oppressed. They try to give these refugees a better future.

Another good example is Love146. Love146 is an organization that works to end modern day slavery and human trafficking. They also provide safe houses for people coming out of slavery. They also work to prevent people from becoming slaves and to make sure that once someone is set free they stay free.

These organizations, and others like them, do good work. This is why Glenn Beck's recent comments about social justice get to me. When he says that social justice is a 'code phrase' used by communists and Nazis, he is slandering people who work hard to make the world a better place. When he tells people to leave their church if that church believes in social justice he is actively undermining organizations like Bridge of Hope and Love146.

Glenn Beck is actually making the world a worse place, and that's what gets to me.

Why Social Justice Matters

Recently, Glenn Beck told his viewers to leave their church if they preach about social justice. I don't normally pay attention to Glenn Beck, but this recent comment is particularly out of line and I want to address it.

What is social justice? Broadly speaking, social justice is the effort to create a society that is more equal, both politically and economically, for everyone. Those who seek social justice seek to help support and uplift those groups that are marginalized within a given society; for example, the poor, the oppressed, slaves, widows, orphans, immigrants, and racial minorities.

The specific term "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit scholar Luigi Taparelli in 1841, but the idea has been around for much longer than that. The idea that society has a responsibility to care for the poor and the marginalized goes at least as far back as Moses.

In the Old Testament Law, which was written by Moses, God's people are instructed to care for the poor, widows, orphans and foreigners. This instruction is repeated in several different places throughout the Law of Moses.

This theme of social justice is picked up by the prophets, who frequently criticize Israel and Judah for oppressing foreigners and not taking care of the poor. Nearly all of the Old Testament prophets touch on this theme. The book of Amos deals almost exclusively with the theme of social justice.

When we enter into the New Testament things only become worse. Jesus frequently commands his followers to share their possessions with people in need. The book of Acts, which describes the history of the early church, tells us that people in the early church shared all of their possessions with one another so that everyone's needs were met.

Glenn Beck also warned his viewers that they might lose their right to read all the passages of the Bible. If Glenn Beck had actually exercised that right himself, then he would know that social justice is not a minor issue for Christians. It lies at the very heart of scripture and of Jesus' teachings.

Glenn Beck's show provides a great example of what happens when you mingle politics and religion. Having a conservative pastor tell their congregation how to vote is bad enough. Having a political pundit tell his audience where they should go to church is even more disturbing.

Glenn Beck is telling his audience not to follow the teachings of Jesus because they don't fit with his particular political agenda. This is a disturbing trend, to say the least.

A Christian Nation

One of the more bizarre arguments in American politics is the argument over whether or not America is a Christian nation. I've seen many Christians try to make this claim and many more who are willing to defend it. I find this bizarre because, as a Christian, I don't think any nation should call itself a Christian nation.

A Christian nation is one that exercises its authority in the name of Christ. Nations exercise and maintain authority by using force, but this is not how authority works in God's Kingdom. Many nations claim to exercise authority in God's name, but none of them exercise authority the way Jesus did when he came to earth.

As I have already said, no political entity can take the place of God's Kingdom. God's Kingdom is distinctly different from the nations of this world. Hence the phrase "Christian nation" is a contradiction in terms. Nations wield authority in a way that is fundamentally at odds with God's Kingdom.

As Christians our hope is not in some great Christian nation that will oppress the whole world in the name of Jesus Christ. Our hope is that the power of love and humility will one day overcome all the nations that rule by force. When we try to build a "Christian nation" we are working against God's Kingdom.

This is why I don't find it troubling when people say that America isn't a Christian nation. In fact, I find it more troubling when people try to associate political forces and institutions with Christianity. Doing so only serves to confuse the message of Jesus.

If we want to stay faithful to the message of Jesus we can't be going after political power. Jesus' message is about loving others, serving them and valuing them above ourselves. If we make it about having power over them, having the ability to control them through political means, then we're abandoning the work that God has given us to do. That's not something I'm prepared to do.

How to Disagree Respectfully

Today I'm going to talk about American politics. Now, honestly I don't like to talk about politics. Political conversations deal with complex issues that people often feel passionately about. As a result political discussions can quickly turn ugly. In fact, that's what I want to talk about; how to keep political conversations from turning ugly.

For those of us who are Christians, I believe that in any conversation we should try to show respect to the people we're talking to. This is an important rule to keep in mind when we talk about politics because often times, when these sensitive issues come up, we feel that it's more important that people agree with us. I've seen so many people, Christians included, talk about politics in a way that is disrespectful to their political opponents. So today I'm going to talk about how to be respectful when having political conversations. This post is aimed at Christians, but I think other people might find the advice to be helpful as well.

First of all, don't say things like, "I don't believe he's really a Christian." This statement is usually directed against politicians (like President Obama) although sometimes it is directed against groups of voters (like people who opposed Prop 8 in California). As a politically liberal Christian, this is an issue I can relate to. When George W. Bush was in office I often felt this way about some of his policies. One time I remember complaining with a friend about President Bush and the friend simply said, "Yeah, but he's still family." I think this is an important thing to keep in mind, that as Christians we are brothers and sisters in Christ.

Now, I'm certainly not saying that you can't criticize people who claim to be Christian. I think it's okay, and even healthy, for us to talk about how we think Christians should behave. We can say things like, "I don't think Christians should support Roe v. Wade." I have often said that I don't think Christians should support torture. It may seem like I'm splitting hairs here, but there's a world of difference between saying, "I don't think Christians should support gay marriage," and, "If you voted against Prop 8 then you aren't really a Christian."

The key difference is that when you say that someone who claims to be Christian isn't really a Christian, you're passing judgment on them. You're saying that they're either a liar or a hypocrite. But passing judgment is God's job and not yours. God can see a person's true character, but you can't. He's the one who gets to decide whether or not someone is really a Christian, not you.

This brings me to my next point, which is, don't say things that aren't true. This seems like it should be a no-brainer, but in today's society it's not as easy as it seems. There are many questionable or unscrupulous news sources that will pass along information that is misleading or just plain false. This is easy to solve, though. Just spend a little time on Google and fact check your sources before you use them in a political debate. This way you're not embarrassing yourself or passing along bad information.

The last point I want to make is this: when in a political debate, talk about facts that can be verified, rather than opinions that are unverifiable. For example, I recently saw a discussion online where someone said that they didn't believe Obama was Christian because he seemed too arrogant. This was frustrating, because not only did they claim that Obama was not a Christian, but their reason for doing so was entirely subjective. To me Obama seems like he's a pretty humble considering that he's the leader of the free world. He certainly doesn't seem any more arrogant than the last President.

When you limit the discussion to verifiable facts, it's a lot easier to establish a common ground. When you decide to argue about things that are entirely subjective, usually there isn't any common ground. Without a common ground the argument often degenerates quickly. Unless you want to throw insults at the other person, your only real option is to just agree to disagree.

Hopefully some of you found this guide helpful. Does anyone else have some suggestions for how to have more polite political conversations?