NPR, Same-sex marriage, Lutherans, & the Bible
President Obama, by citing his Christian faith as contributing to his “evolution” on same-sex marriage, instigated a blip in media coverage of religion and the Bible. Many Christians have jumped at the opportunity to quote scripture and preach “Christian marriage” but it’s not a simple message.
NPR’s Barbara Bradley Hagerty’s coverage May 11, “Same Bible, Different Verdict on Gay Marriage,” now has over 12,000 Facebook shares and 1400 comments. In the story, Hagerty does her best to have pastors on both sides of the debate use the Bible in their reasoning. Frankly, I thought the story handled the complex issue fairly well until the throwaway ending, “Of course, conservatives say that the best blueprint for God’s kingdom on earth does not spring from what you read between the lines of the Bible, but what you read in black and white.”
I wasn’t the only one disturbed by this line. At Religion Dispatches Peter Laarman writes a public letter to NPR citing exactly that problematic closing line: “NPR should be embarrassed to broadcast an ostensibly analytic piece that concludes by giving a free pass to the literalists and by reinforcing the notion that those of us who read the Bible for its core message are really not reading it at all.”
For those wondering about the supposed clear Biblical mandate for “Christian marriage,” Rev. David Lewicki in “The Case Against Christian Marriage” outlines 8 — count them, eight! — points that significantly complicate the argument that “the BIble is clear” about marriage.
The actual issue, of course, isn’t what the Bible decrees about marriage in 21st century America, but how we read what the Bible does say. News coverage of exegetical approaches are few and far between, and I don’t expect news organizations to report the clear fact that the Bible — read as a historical document — says nothing specifically addressing constitutional amendments in North Carolina. But reporters do need to make clear that any question related to Christian marriage and Biblical mandate is one of Biblical interpretation.
President Obama, thank God, used a Christian argument (though a soundbite one, for sure) to explain his support of same-sex marriage. For that, I am extremely grateful since the marriage question is one tied inextricably to justice, civil rights, and neighborly love — all values at the heart of my Christian faith rooted in scripture. That said, a recent experience at a regional Lutheran gathering still has be thinking about the best way to frame the debate.
The Northwest Minnesota Synod of the Evangelical Church in America (ELCA) met last weekend at Concordia College in Moorhead, Minnesota. Several controversial matters came before the assembly including “A Resolution in Opposition of the Marriage Amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution.” (Minnesota faces a similar marriage amendment vote this November as did North Carolina last week.) After some debate, the resolution to oppose the marriage amendment passed overwhelmingly — it wasn’t officially counted, by I’d guess 2/3 or so voted in favor of the resolution. I was heartened.
What continues to bother me, however, is the fact that the resolution itself quotes previous assembly actions and an ELCA social statement “Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust,” but not scripture. On the other hand, materials supplied by congregations opposed to the proposal reference scripture many times (plus Lutheran confessional documents). Similarly, those who spoke on the floor of the assembly mirrored these practices. Those speaking in favor of the resolution did not tend to quote scripture while those speaking against the resolution read from scripture at length.
And so, the question remains: can Christians who support same-sex marriage (or, at least, oppose constitutional amendments) use scripture at the heart of their arguments? Or, are we ceding the “black and white” ground of the Bible to Christian conservatives employing a certain way to read the Bible?
image by shezita
Big Boys? Maybe. Real Men? No way.
I hate macho. I hate the message it sends young men — that we should be athletes not scholars, emotionless yet prone to violence, treat women as sex objects and gay men as the enemy. Yet, macho culture is so prevalent I often forget how dastardly it is until something sets me off. Yesterday, that spark was lit by this weekend’s Fargo Big Boys Toys Expo at the Fargodome.
Sam Benshoof may have been just doing his job with he wrote The Forum newspaper promo article April 26, but let the record show that, contrary to the article’s opening lines, this man is not rejoicing that the Expo is in town. And, let’s not kid ourselves: the Big Boys Toys Expo will most definitely not be for all of us.
W
ill there be readings by our local poet laureate, Jamie Parsley?
How about sessions on knitting, art, and dance?
Would a gay couple truly be welcome? (Would that be before, or after, the Hooters contest?!)
Will there be presentations on good parenting, developing communication skills, health and wellness, religion and spirituality?
No. Instead the Expo seems all about perpetuating dangerous gender stereotypes that hurt us all and desensitize us to this drivel. That it does so with such boldness makes it all the more problematic.
According to the article, the Fargo Big Boys Toys Expo is organized by The Forum itself! After the launch of the SheSays section, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised. But, really…a Hooters Pageant? The prospect of that, I hate, even more than macho.
image by Stillsearc
Transforming Divisive Conversation
I have my hands full at the moment with some up-and-coming writing and other projects, but I did want to update the blog and give a quick public thanks to the Public Conversations Project. I attended a workshop in Minneapolis this week entitled, “Transforming Divisive Conversation” and learned a heckuvalot. (By the way, I attended because I recently joined my presbytery’s Committee on Ministry, a committee that, at times, deals with congregations in conflict.) If you work with groups in conflict — or you’re human and may encounter conflict in the future — check out the Public Conversations Project’s approach and workshops here. It’s tricky to sum up a daylong workshop in a post, but here’s three quick takeaways from the workshop led by Robert Stains:
- When dealing with conflicted situations, Stains says up to 80% of the work is prep work. Such work might include pre-meeting conversations, participant prep, communication agreements, visioning structures, and planning questions that elicit fresh full speaking. Prep work considers questions like, “What words relating to the issue do you find hurtful?” “What is it about this community that matters to you?” “What would it take to bring your best self to the meeting?”
- Quality of conversation drives the quality of community. So, quality conversation helps move conflicted situations from reactive speaking to reflective speaking, from listening to find fault to listening to understand, from speaking with slogans to speaking personally, and from defending positions to addressing deep concerns.
- Random group dynamic issue: need an easy way to have everyone in a group respond to a question for two minutes, but actually keep things to two minutes? Use, well, a watch. Here’s how. As the first person shares, the facilitator is holding the watch and quietly times 2 minutes. When the time is up, the facilitator walks the watch over to the sharer who stops talking as the watch is handed over. That person then times the person next to them, simply handing the watch over if the speaker reaches 2 minutes. And so on around the circle. It was the perfect way for 15 people to share in a timely way. (Do note: I’m not suggesting this for a group in conflict, but Bob used it for our workshop and it went amazingly smoothly.)
Many workshop participants attended as part of their preparation to lead conversations in Minnesota concerning the November ballot amendment to ban gay marriage. One program that sounds particularly interesting (though seems to have a low online profile) is the Minnesota Council of Churches Respectful Conversations Project. I hope we can bring it to Moorhead!
Curious about transforming conflict through respectful conversation? PCP has a ton of great resources posted on their website.
A place we don’t recognize anymore
A current Minnesota Public Radio promotional clip includes short phrases from several politicians’ recent speeches. One of them is Mitt Romney saying, “If we don’t step up, our country is going to turn into something we can’t recognize anymore” (approximate quote from memory). On MPR the quote plays without any context re the larger speech, but even so, it has great resonance with me (resonance, in a “sure folks think that” sort of way, not an “I agree” way). In fact, it’s a handy quick lens to explore perspectives on change in church, society, and politics.
Society is changing; it does look very different than it used to. The now famous picture from yesterday’s congregational hearing of all men testifying at a congressional panel on women’s reproductive health is ridiculous to most folks today, but common procedure not too long ago. The US Military today has many female troops, openly gay soldiers, and is incredibly racially diverse. We have a black President. Entire books can be downloaded wirelessly to handheld electronic devices in seconds. The US will enjoy no racial majority by 2040. Doctors rarely diagnose without fancy machines laypeople can’t understand. And, by golly, even PBS is cool these days.
The church, of course, is changing too. It is also becoming a place some folks don’t recognize, and for complicated reasons:
- on Sundays many young families are opting for soccer practice, or chill time, rather than worship
- neighborhood demographics have changed around many of our churches
- Biblical literacy is way down
- young pastors carry thousands of dollars worth of school debt
- the church’s moral authority has waned
- a lot of folks actually like music composed in the last 25 years, and many of these pieces don’t have traditional rhyme schemes, meters, or predictable western tunes
- denomination budgets and membership stats have declined for years
I don’t want to draw too much of a false dichotomy between those who welcome our country turning into something “we don’t recognize anymore” and those who fear it. After all, I’m not exactly a fan of change (I’m Presbyterian). But even though change sometimes makes me uncomfortable, I do really like to grow, to be pushed to new understandings, to be made to admit that the status quo is not as fair, faithful, or good as I thought it was.
I’m happy to admit that a common result following a change I don’t immediately support is pretty fantastic results. (I think of my friends who have just had a child, or are expecting. Their worlds are changing in ways totally unrecognizable, and it’s welcome!)
The church has been around for 2000 years. We’ll manage. The US has been around for 250 years. We’ll manage. Rather than change I won’t recognize, I’m more afraid of getting stuck in a deep unjust rut that we all recognize, but which we ultimately despise.
Occupy Wall Street & Christian Theology, a Conversation
Last night at Theology Pub we hosted a conversation consider the Occupy Wall Street movement and Christian theology. In truth, when I scheduled the topic, I was a bit nervous about how it would go. After all, the Christian church these days sometimes feels more like a corporate conglomerate than a fringe movement taking to the streets. The conversation, however, went beautifully and I left contemplating the many cross-over notions of Christianity and the #Occupy movement (OWS).
In last week’s news roundup on NPR, NY Times columnist David Brooks said, “I think the Tea Party is like, 11 percent of the country. My estimate is that Occupy Wall Street is 2 or 3 percent of the country in what they actually want to do.” I’m not sure what Brooks thinks “they actually want to do,” but last night a fairly mixed group of young adults — Christians, atheists, seekers, seminarians, pastors — was definitely more than appreciative of the movement. Here’s why.
First, we considered how OWS might connect to Jesus’ notion of the “kingdom of God.” (See Brian McLaren’s piece here.) Conversation hinged on what a new version of the world might look like, one in which there is less income inequality, everyone has a voice, and diminished injustice. We considered, also, how the Kingdom of God is something that is not only coming in the future, but something that we can glimpse here and now. Perhaps OWS can remind and inspire Christians to live out that kingdom mentality.
Second, since the OWS folks seem to be living out certain intentional practices such as offering hospitality, food, prayer, tearing down of golden calves, and so on, we wondered with Elizabeth Drescher how OWS might be seen as a spiritual practice. Folks were less open to this notion, as they didn’t see religious identity as a determinative aspect to most folks’ participation in the protests. Certainly there are exceptions (such as the Protest Chaplains), but I was personally intrigued how folks seemed to be willing to make a distinction like, “People do this not because they’re Christian, but because they’re fed up with injustice.” I don’t like that distinction one bit, but it seemed to drive several persons’ thinking and went over without much debate.
Third, the move of OWS to “kill the Buddhas of power and hierarchy in our society,” as Nathan Schneider considers here, was quite compelling to folks. Our young adults needed almost no time to point out different idols of wealth, power, prestige, celebrity, nationality, even unquestioned democracy that needed to be called to account. (Of course, it’s always easier to point out the false idols of others than it is to claim your own hangups.)
Finally, we ended with a brief consideration of how sin (both personal and societal) might be way to put Christian language to the brokenness OWS folks are protesting.
At the end of the night, my uneasiness about the OWS topic has subsided, only to be replaced by another troublesome reality. Our conversation went so well, tapping into much of Christian theology and the Bible, that I mourned the fact such polite, wide-ranging, political conversation would be difficult to host in many mainline churches. But then again, according to the young adults gathered last night, it’s not Christians who push this justice stuff anyway.
image by Rob Sheridan
Social Media Blackout: This Time It’s Personal
I’m quitting social media. For a few days next week, that is. I think I might make it an annual occasion just like Harrisburg University. Readers might remember last year at this time when Harrisburg University of Science and Technology 
imposed a week-long ban on social media use on campus. Well, they’re at it again.
This week the university is blocking access over its network to Facebook, MySpace (who cares?), Twitter, and LinkedIn, as well as all instant messaging services. The administration can’t get at smart phones, I suppose, they’re not God after all.
Dr. Eric Darr, Executive Vice President and Provost of the University says,
It is not intended to be a punishment nor is it intended to be an indictment of social media. In fact, access to all social media sites was still possible over mobile wireless devices, proximate public networks or home-based networks. The hope is to make habits and effects of social media use more visible and understandable, particularly in the classroom, through temporary abstinence.
I love it! Plus, they talk about the ban in panels (and surely dorm rooms), so perhaps the students really can reflect.
I’ve decided to institute my own ban next week. I’m taking a few days of stay-cation plus three days visiting St. Johns Abbey and staying in the guesthouse. I’m pretty pumped for quietness, prayers, walking the trails, viewing the St. John’s Bible, and decidedly not Facebooking, Google+ing, or tweeting.
Harrisburg University conducted surveys and focus groups to reflect on the social media blackout last year. Some students reported better concentration in classrooms, more time spent on homework, and a better understanding of the value of face-to-face conversations. 33% reported feeling less stress during the blackout week.
Did I mention I’m looking forward to next week?
Connect Online
An opinion piece of mine went up at MPR News online today. In it, I try to set some ground rules for debating the marriage amendment that will be on Minnesota’s ballot come November. An excerpt of the article is below. I hope you go to the MPR site to read the full piece, share it, comment, lash out at me, praise its brilliance, etc.
Let’s have some ground rules for debating the marriage amendment
Adam J. Copeland
“My parents’ neighbor was confused. Four years ago the citizens of Florida were preparing to vote ona constitutional amendment similar to the marriage amendment slated for Minnesota’s November ballot. My father, a Presbyterian pastor in Florida, put up a yard sign urging citizens to “vote no” on the amendment.
The day after the sign went up, a neighbor came by the house. In his quiet way, the neighbor kindly told my father that he must be confused about what a “yes” or “no” vote meant regarding the amendment. Our neighbor, knowing my father was a pastor, wanted to spare him the embarrassment of having put up the wrong sign.
My father smiled and thanked him even as he explained that the yard sign was no mistake. In fact, it was my family’s Christian convictions that demanded they speak out against the amendment. The ensuing conversation may not have changed any votes, but it certainly deepened the neighbors’ understanding of one another.
The story speaks to some assumptions regarding the marriage amendment debate — that all Christian pastors would support the amendment, for one. As Minnesota nears its own time of yard signs and neighborly banter over a proposed marriage amendment, I suggest the following five ground rules for the debate.
Let all Minnesotans remember that:
There is no one Christian position. Some, like the state’s Catholic bishops, advocate for the amendment on Christian grounds. Others, like the majority of delegates at the recent Minneapolis Synod Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, oppose the amendment. As a Christian pastor myself I would be the last to say that one’s religious convictions should not influence choices at the voting booth — anything but. However, it should be noted that Christians hold varied and complex positions on the amendment. We cannot be seen as one voting bloc…..” [to read the full piece go to MPR News]