One God

The bumper sticker read, "God has no religion"—Mahatma Gandhi. As a practitioner of a religion that has informed and enriched my life beyond measure, I have been wrestling with that quotation ever since. It reminds me of the Jesus who sits with a Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) or rails against the pious hypocrisy of his own elders (John 9), offering the reality of God to each in spite of religion, even his own.

Those convinced that reality is only that which can be measured and weighed struggle with the fact that all cultures since the beginning of human history have expressed beliefs in divinity or spirituality. Attempting to explain away humanity's almost universal religious expression, University of William and Mary anthropologist Barbara King suggests that the "belongingness" associated with religious behavior evolved as a human survival trait deep within our cultural and biological DNA (Evolving God, Barbara J. King, Double Day Religion, 2007). She and other social scientists suggest that humanity invented religion to form and sustain the communities that insured survival.

Maybe so, but the professor confuses religion with God.

Along with pointing out the rich history of failure and atrocity in religious institutions, which cannot be denied, our atheist and agnostic friends' criticism of monotheistic religion in particular will focus on the stories and metaphors of God as an "Old Man Up in the Sky," ignoring that only the most woodenheaded literalists actually think of God as a "Shepherd" (Psalm 23), or "roaring like a lion"(Hosea 11:10) or that God is a "rock," which we find 19 times in the Book of Psalms.

The Ten Commandments, found in all three Abrahamic faiths, state an essential conviction that there is one God and one God alone, who, by God’s nature, transcends any human concept or comprehension: "I am the Lord your God … you shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth below" (Exodus 20:2-4).

Two very different concepts of divinity, often at tension with teach other, are found in the shared traditions by the three religions. "God [is a] being beyond the universe, another being in addition to the universe, the supreme being, almighty and all-knowing [who] created the universe, but is separate from it; and...God is not a separate being from the universe but a sacred presence all around us...a reality...present everywhere and permeates everything, not 'somewhere else'.... (Marcus Borg, Speaking Christian, HarperOne, 2012, p. 66)

On the one hand, our traditions personify God as a male supreme being who "walks through the garden of Eden" (Genesis 3:8), who is like a shepherd (Psalm 23) or who has a mighty "right hand" (Exodus 15:6,12). At the same time, God is understood as a sacred presence beyond gender (Genesis 1:27), in which "we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28), not separate from the universe but permeating all of life and time (Psalm 139); "...we are in God as fish are in water." (Borg p. 69).

The three Abrahamic religions can understand this One God as the Supreme Being and/or as Being itself. This seeming contradiction passes the limitations of rational thought.

Thus our traditions use metaphors and poetry to talk about God because, either as Supreme Being or Being itself, any definition of eternal, omnipresent, omniscient divinity by its nature will transcend human understanding and words.

Joseph Campbell, the brilliant comparative religion professor, once said, "God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought, including being and non-being. It's so simple."

But it’s not so simple for most of us. We can and should condemn the evil done in the name of religion. We can dismiss the mythological that is held up by some as science. But we can't negate the reality of a mystery with and against which humans have related since history began.

In the third chapter of the Hebrew book Exodus, at the burning bush, God reveals God's name to Moses as "I Am that I Am"; it is an enigmatic puzzle and is supposed to be. The Hebrew tradition is never to speak or write that name, for to do so would suggest that one understands what one is saying. No one can ever fully comprehend all of who or what God is.  Worshipping something that can be named is to worship an idol.

The Muslim tradition so abhors idolatry that most of its artists refuse to depict the face of Mohammad or other prophetic figures from their sacred book, the Koran. The amazing beautiful traditions of Islamic calligraphy come out of the insistence that recreating images of the children of God is idolatry.

At the root of the faith shared by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism is a relationship with the source of life itself that transcends time and moment. That reality belongs to all of creation, not to any one religion or rejection of religion. If God is God, there can only be One. And these three distinct traditions share that conviction in their own unique ways, often with their own unique versions of the same stories.

Human beings invent religion as a means to grapple with a mystery never to be reduced to our understanding. The variety of expression in concept and ritual is evidence enough. Sometimes humans use their religion for all the wrong reasons. Sometimes the religious can redeem the individual or community beyond all expectations for good. Yet this very human institution can only point to the reality of spirit – at best, by its example. Religion is not to be confused with "a oneness in life that is not of our creation" (John Philipp Newell, Iona).

Fifty Shades of Grace #9

How is it possible that society could honor these people in death but dismiss a core aspect of their humanity in life?

·        Alan Turing, a brilliant mathematician and computer science pioneer, was an essential member of the British military team that broke the Enigma code and saved thousands of lives from German U-boats during World War II. On December 24, 2013, fifty years after his suicide, his government posthumously pardoned his conviction for homosexuality. His sentence at the time was the option to be physically or chemically castrated. He chose chemical castration; medical consensus concludes that those drugs led him to take his own life (San Jose Mercury News, 12/24/13, p. A15).

·        Sally K. Ride was the first American woman in space. She held a Ph.D. in physics, was the CEO of her own company, and co-authored children’s books. Dr. Ride was launched into space twice through NASA’s shuttle program. On November 20, 2013, President Obama posthumously awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award, and presented it to Tam O’ Shaughnessy, her lesbian partner of 27 years.

·        Mark K. Bingham was a public relations executive, a member of the twice-national champion rugby team at University of California, Berkeley, and a passenger on United Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. He was one of the ones who fought back against the hijackers planning to crash the plane in Washington, DC. Mark Bingham was a gay man. He has been awarded numerous civic and athletic honors since his death. His name is inscribed at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York, NY, and the Flight 93 National Memorial in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, where the plane eventually crashed.

In some nations, gays and lesbians face imprisonment and capital punishment. Here in the United States, their full rights as citizens are restricted in a number of ways. Acts of violence against gay men and women still occur in this country.

Why would the way a consenting adult experiences sexual arousal and acts on one of the most human of urges be the basis of religious and cultural stigma? Why do societies still use this stigma to discriminate and legislate against individuals with nonheterosexual orientation?

It’s a complicated question.

Sociologists suggest that patriarchal cultures encourage and ritualize misogyny. In such a culture, to suggest that a man has characteristics deemed feminine or has done something only women do is the greatest of insults. In such cultures, femininity is seen as weak and vulnerable.

Calling a male a p___y, f_g or q___r equates them to being a woman; these are fighting words in patriarchal cultures.

Psychologists suggest that in patriarchal cultures there is an irrational fear of homosexuality, or homophobia, due to generalized fear of one’s own sexuality. Many social scientists argue that our sexual orientation runs across a spectrum and can vary throughout the stages of development. That such ambiguity may be natural is no comfort to those in a society insisting on strict delineation of gender roles.

For example, in November 2013 a sleeping bi-gender teenager wearing a kilt on a public bus in Oakland was set on fire by a group of teenage males (San Jose Mercury News, 11/06/13, p A-1). Somehow Sasha’s mere existence so threatened the manhood of this group of young men that they decided to violently attack a stranger. Perhaps they needed to prove their manhood to each other in the face of Sasha’s ambiguity.

After Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty reality TV show on A&E Network published statements in the January 2014 issue of GQ magazine, the outpouring of support from conservative, evangelical groups suggests that the religious basis of such patriarchal prejudice and fear is very much alive and well in certain circles here in the United States (http://ipost.christianpost.com/news/12-quotes-phil-robertsons-homosexuality-comments-and-defenses-12701).

Dr. James Sanders, a retired Hebrew scripture professor, best articulated the general consensus among scholarship today that the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic as described in the Biblical canon is based on the covenant made between God and Abraham in the twelfth chapter of the book of Genesis (and repeated throughout Genesis). God promised the family of Abraham would be “as numerous of the grains of sand on a beach ... as there are stars in the sky” (Genesis 22:17). Procreation was the means of extending the Abrahamic covenant. Childbearing, when fathered by Hebrew males, was sanctioned and codified for multiple wives, slaves, concubines, widowed sisters-in-law, and some cases of rape and war, as long as the children added to the “chosen people.”

This is why fornication is considered an abomination throughout the canon. Fornication is the term used for any sexual activity outside of the sanctioned kinds that can lead to additional members of the Hebrew nation: such as masturbation, intercourse before Hebrew marriage or outside of Hebrew marriage, bestiality, adultery, and of course homosexuality.

In referring to I Corinthians 6:9-11, at least Phil Robertson was willing to cite the entire list of sexual activities that will result in exclusion from inheriting the Kingdom of God (according to Paul), not just those referring to same-gender sexual activity, although Mr. Robertson did not mention gossiping – which can also exclude one from heaven, according to Paul.

It would be surprising if the Duck Dynasty star considers fornication to include masturbation, couples who sleep together before their weddings, or seniors who cohabitate without marriage due to financial complications. Today, forty percent of U.S. births occur out of wedlock, according to the census. All of these activities are commonplace in our society today but would technically be considered fornication. One wonders if those conservative, evangelical groups supporting Phil Robertson’s hermeneutic spend the same energy condemning other forms of fornication as they spend on homosexuality.

The Bible says a lot of things. It is the interpreter who gives its verses and themes relevance by application. For example, we no longer sanction slavery, considered business as usual (and highly regulated) in the scriptures, both Old and New Testaments. We no longer consider women as property of the male head of household, as described in both Old and New Testaments. The Bible’s teachings of love and justice have liberated society from applying some of its own most oppressive verses/themes as the context of its application has changed.*

While the majority of self-identified Christians would cite the Bible as the basis of their condemnation of homosexuality, only the most literalistic would suggest that male homosexuals should be put to death, as prescribed in Leviticus 18:22-23. While those who resist same-gender marriage cite the divine aspect of procreation, childbearing has never been a requirement for the state to issue a marriage license to heterosexual couples.

Alan Turing, Sally Ride, and Mark Bingham were exceptional human beings whose lives were defined after death by courage, sacrifice and intelligence. During their lives, society, with the most capricious of rationales, defined them by myth and fear.

Someday ... hopefully soon ... it won’t take heroics for members of the LGBTQ community to receive common acknowledgement of their worth as human beings ... and they won’t be defined by anything but their character.

 

* That is why the Bible is called the “living word of God.” God did not stop speaking to creation when the Biblical canon was finished in the fifth century CE.

Fifty Shades of Grace: #8

My last baseball game at Candlestick Park

September 15, 1999, San Francisco Giants vs. Florida Marlins, day game, late in a season when the Giants would come in second place in the Western Division. The Giants won 4-3; Barry Bonds went 0 for 4; Jeff Kent hit his 20^th homerun off of losing pitcher Dennis Springer in the fourth inning; JT Snow was hit by a pitch right after Kent hit his homerun in the 4^th, and Snow hit his own homerun off of Springer in the 6^th … justice! Russ Ortiz got his 17th win, Rob Nen got his 34th save, and Marvin Benard played centerfield. Benard was with the Giants for nine seasons and was one of the greatest Major League Baseball players to come out of Nicaragua, where he remains a hero today.

Other than that, I don’t remember much about that game. Benard was caught stealing second base in the first inning, and there were only 11,996 people at the game, which included Bonnie and me, our best friends Nick and Robin, and their two girls and our two boys, all about the same age. Going to baseball games had been a long tradition with our families, and I can’t count how many one-day round trips we made between 1982 and 1998 from Reno or Fresno to see a game at Candlestick. By 1999, we were living in Los Altos and Nick and Robin were in Walnut Creek, so the commute to Candlestick was much easier.

It was important to be there when the gates opened two and a half hours before first pitch. The kids would chase foul balls and ask for autographs during batting practice. We adults would read or talk. Once the game started, we would move to open seats in our favorite upper reserve section. One of my fondest memories is sitting with each of my sons on either side of me, watching a ball game at Candlestick.

Except for 1987 and 1989, (division winning and playoff years) attendance was really poor at Candlestick. Twenty-five thousand in attendance for a Saturday game was considered a big crowd. To think that AT&T Park is in its third year of consecutive sold-out games is amazing.

Our kids would often run around the stadium during the games if things were boring. It felt safe then. Almost like home. I recently learned from my oldest son, Dan, that on that day – our last baseball game at Candlestick – he, my son Matt, Nicole and Susie scurried around the stadium to the highest seats to leave their graffiti names on Seats 1-2, section 64, top row. They wanted to leave their mark on Candlestick because it had left its mark on them. 

I don’t know if those signatures are still there or not. It doesn’t really matter, though, as the memories will only become more important as they take down that cold, dank, obsolete stadium. I won’t miss those freezing cold, extra-inning night games. 

Our “baseball family” continues to gather for the sacred sanctuary of home plate, infield, and outfield. We continue to cheer for our Giants, screaming out “Beat LA! Beat LA!” And Candlestick will be a part – a large part – of our cherished “family” memory.

Thoughts on the Schaefer Trial

The media attention given to the ecclesiastical trial in Pennsylvania for United Methodist pastor Frank Schaefer has a lot of folks confused and concerned. 

Rev. Schaefer performed a same gender wedding ceremony for his son and his partner in 2007, violating the United Methodist Book of Discipline.  A member of his congregation filed charges against him.  A jury of his UM Pennsylvania clergy peers found him guilty and Rev. Schaefer was given a 30-day suspension and told that if he can’t uphold the Book of Discipline in its entirety, he must surrender his credentials as an ordained clergy of the United Methodist Church. Rev. Schaefer has publicly stated he will not make such a promise.

Any United Methodist can file charges against a UM clergy person or Bishop.  If those charges warrant a trial, which is determined by the local Bishop, trial procedures are carried out within the boundaries of the Conference in which the clergy serves.  In recent years, a handful of trials across the country relating to the UM prohibition against the ordination of gays and lesbians, or clergy participation in same gender weddings has resulted in a variety of outcomes, from dismissal of charges to suspensions and loss of credentials.  

While Rev. Schaefer’s trial and punishment establishes a precedent, it is regional.  Each geographical Conference is left to work out its own process within the framework of the Discipline.  In other words, just because Rev. Schaefer was found guilty and defrocked in Pennsylvania doesn't mean that all other UM clergy in other Conferences will necessarily meet the same fate for similar violations of the Discipline.

The list of "chargeable offenses" for UM clergy and Bishops is long, running from fiscal malfeasance and criminal behavior to interfering with another pastor's ministry.  Rev. Schaefer was charged with "disobedience to the order and discipline of the UMC" (BoD, 2702.1d).  That could include a pastor refusing to baptize an infant (BoD 216.1) or failing to lead his/her congregation to pay 100 percent of their Apportionments (BoD 340.2c1(e)); Two-thirds of pastors in the California-Nevada Conference could be charged with the latter offense!  Chargeable offenses that lead to trial are very rare; their application in our denomination’s struggle with human sexuality is quite arbitrary.   

This most recent trial coupled with a complaint filed with the Council of Bishops against retired UM Bishop Melvin G. Talbert for participating in a same gender wedding celebration in Alabama says much more about the denomination's majority than the actions of these pastors.

The “majority” to which I refer is a 60-65 percent voting blocks of elected delegates to the quadrennial UM General Conference, the governing body with authority to adopt or amend the rules of the church.  Delegations are based on a ratio in proportion to church membership within each Conference.  In other words, at the 2016 General Conference the California-Nevada Conference with 78,000 members will have 6 voting delegates.  The North George Conference with 362,000 members will have 22 delegates.  Most North American United Methodists live within a zone bordered by Dallas-Indianapolis-Washington DC-Atlanta.   Delegates from those Conferences are the core of the “majority" to which I refer. This majority and the ancillary institutions they support have also successfully organized the voting delegations from outside of the U.S. (In 2016, 30 percent of all delegates will come from Conferences in Africa) especially on issues of human sexuality.

Since 1972, the majority has legislated to the prohibitions for ordination of self-avowed members of the LGBTQ community and clergy participation in their "holy unions" or weddings.  The language describing human sexuality in the Book of Discipline reflects the tension within our denomination with an awkwardly mixed message; describing those in the LGBTQ community as "no less of sacred worth" than heterosexuals while living "incompatible to Christian teaching."

The majority use of church trial to punish pastors violating their prohibitions against the full inclusion of the LGBTQ community in the life of our church may be some of the last options they have in a losing battle. Yes, they consistently win General Conference skirmishes due to their superior numbers and their manipulation of international delegations.  But restoring to the trial of pastors and the threat to censure retired Bishop Melvin G. Talbert exposes the emptiness of their doctrinal and theology arguments. 

Church trials and threats of censure are about power and control.

It is hallow to claim the need to uphold "scriptural authority" or warn against "conforming to the world" (Romans 12:2) as secular society and the young rapidly accept non-heterosexuals as full citizens.   For example, the teachings of Jesus are unambiguous that divorce is akin to adultery, a capital offense and abomination (Matthew 5:23, 19:9 note Genesis 2:24, Ezekiel 22:11).  Yet taken in their historical context, our denomination long ago accepted the full participation of the divorced in the life of the church.  In a secular society with a 50% divorce rate, we ordain divorced clergy and commission divorced Bishops.  Clergy who confess to adultery and are willing to work successfully through its’ consequences under the supervision of a Bishop while suspended can eventually return to active ministry.  Yet often based on the very same biblical verses, the majority will insist that marriage is only to be considered between one man and one women or that the "abomination" of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian life while going through a divorce can be.

Today's argument from the “majority” is that as clergy and Bishops openly violate the Book of Discipline's prohibitions, they break the covenant taken in their ordination vows to "uphold the order and discipline of the church."  They argue that having failed to change the rules within the proscribed process of the General Conference, the minority now disregards our ecclesiastical democracy.

They are absolutely right.

For example, at the induction of a military officer, vows are taken to uphold and defend the U.S Constitution against all enemies. They also promise to obey the orders of military superiors in a chain of command that reaches to the Commander in Chief, the President.  However, tested in military and civil courts throughout our history, that vow cannot nor must not allow our soldiers to follow illegal or immoral orders.  A soldier’s first commitment is to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.  That doesn't allow for the mass murder of civilians at Mai Lai village Vietnam (1968) or the summary execution of an Iraqi family in Fallujah (2004).  Soldiers fulfill their primary vow by disobeying illegal or immoral orders from a superior as difficult and contextually limited as that may be.

The minority has the duty to "uphold the order and discipline of the UMC" by acts of "biblical obedience" to call the larger church to accountability to its injustice.  Those in the minority are willing to face the consequences of their actions to redeem the church we love.

It is dishonest and dishonorable to insist that openly homosexual people are disqualified from ordination when thousands have served and are serving as clergy, even as Bishops, as long as they hide their sexual orientation. The discriminatory language suggesting that anyone's sexual orientation makes them "incompatible" with Christian teaching is based on the most arbitrary and capricious hermeneutic and ignores the latest science of human sexuality.  

Former debates over slavery and women's rights warned of the dangers of "conforming to the world" when the church was confronted with society's advances in human rights.  Northern European cultures and its younger generations are rapidly changing in attitude and understanding of sexual orientation.  Sixteen states and the District of Columbia now offer legal marriage licenses to same gender couples and the world has not come to an end.  Might the church listen and learn from this sweeping social change rather than erect its narrow walls in defense?  

Thousands can see through the emptiness of our denomination's tag line..."Open Doors, Open Minds, Open Hearts."  The hypocrisy and empty dogma of our denomination's majority is blatantly exposed as they defrock a father who wanted to participate in his son's celebration of love and commitment, or by censoring a distinguished Bishop's act of conscience, a Bishop who as a young man marched along side of and slept on the floors of jailhouses with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who served as president of the National Council of Churches and Ecumenical officer of the UMC to the World Council of Churches.

Yes, the majority can win votes at General Conference, but those are hollow victories as our North American denomination continues to decline in numbers of members, worship attendance and financial resource.  The minority cannot and will not stop its "biblical obedience" protest.  It is our duty to disobey the rules and break the covenant when our majority brothers and sisters insist that we acquiesce to their injustice.

Twenty, forty, sixty years from now a United Methodist General Conference will hold a repentance and reconciliation worship service for the way we as a church excluded the LGBTQ community from full participation.  The names of Rev. Frank Schaefer, and Bishop Melvin Talbert, Rev. Jimmy Creche and Bishop Mel Wheatly among many others will be lifted up with praise and thanksgiving. 

Many in the majority know that day is coming.  All they have left is to exert power and control.  I would expect that there are more trials to come and that the consequences shall become harsher.

That just may be the price to pay to redeem the church we love.