An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality - A Proposal

There is a lot of talk among Evangelicals about whether homosexuality is "right" or not. There are people on both sides of the debate, each quoting their Bible. I don't know if this will ever really be resolved, but there is one thing that I think we all can agree on:

We as the church ought to demonstrate love and grace towards people who are gay.

At this point in the argument, however it is common for someone to say, "Yes, but there is a difference between accepting someone and condoning their behavior."

It is at this point that my proposal comes in. Let me begin with some very sobering facts: Statistically, homosexuals have a higher rate of drug abuse, mental illness, and suicide than the larger population. Alarmingly higher in fact. This is well known in the LGBT community, and the reason is quite clear: the rejection they experience - being kicked out of their homes, hiding who they are, being threatened and hated, and so on can easily make a person sick, depressed, broken, and even drive them to suicide. So when gays talk about the importance of being accepted, this is not just political, its something very very close to home for them. It is quite literally, a matter of life and death.

Because of that fact, I think it is rather clear where our priorities should be, and where the priorities of Jesus would be. In his time he was known for "fellowshiping with sinners". Religious folks saw how he welcomed sinners, and concluded that he must not be a prophet. And what did Jesus do? Did he defend his reputation? Did he make sure not to give people the wrong impression? No, he went out of his way to reach out to these people on the margins, often causing open confrontations between himself and the religious leaders of his day. That is our model. Jesus who cares waaaaay more abut loving people than he does with if that looks proper or not.

So based on that model of asking "what would Jesus do" taken together with the severity people in the gay community have of hearing more than anything "you are loved," I propose an indefinite moratorium on pronouncements of the morality or immorality of homosexuality. Let's put that on hold for something much more important.

Regardless of where we stand on the rightness or the wrongness of being gay, I think we should all realize that none of that matters much when people are dying. We need to change our priorities and focus on the critical issue of communicating love and acceptance to these people. Communicating it to a fault, communicating it so completely that we are "misunderstood" and get a "bad reputation," because that is exactly what Jesus did. I want to hear sermons only on how we should love and welcome gay people into our churches, and I want those sermons to be completely unbalanced.

We have spent so much time being "balanced" in the other direction, so much time worrying about "giving the wrong impression" that it is time to shift our lopsided boat the other way. Because as long as our priority is in looking moral rather than in showing compassion and grace to those on the outside, we simply do not have the priorities of Jesus. And when we do not reflect Christ, we are giving the wrong impression. So let's change that.

Jesus was a Democrat

Below are some highlights from the lyrics to the song "Jesus was a Democrat" by Everclear.

Jesus Was a Democrat - Everclear

I bet you think of him
As a nice clean long haired Republican, nah
He would be all locked up in Guantanamo Bay
If he were alive today
He would have been a revolutionary
Wanted by the CIA

I picture him in all the wrong places
Finding diamonds in the dirt
A Star of David tattoo
And a Che t-shirt
Jesus Christ was a left wing radical Jew
Murdered by people like you

If Jesus was a Democrat like the bible says he was
I don’t think he’s going to want to take the blame
For all the awful things you say and do in his name
I am pretty god damned sure ……
He is going to be angry
He is going to be angry

You say Jesus loves the little children
And I say I know that’s true
I say he loves all the Muslims and the Jews
All the addicts and the porn stars too
You say Jesus died to save us all from a fiery hell
I say Jesus died to save us
Save us from ourselves
Will you save me from myself?

If Jesus was a liberal like the red letters say he was
I know he would have big love for all the killers and the racists
And the bullies in this world

If Jesus was alive today
And you had a chance to meet him face to face
I’m pretty God-damned sure that you and your friends
Would find some way to kill him all over again
You would kill him all over again
Again and again and again
Just like you always do
You do just what you always do

Is Obama the Anti-Christ?

There is a video making the rounds on Youtube that claims to present biblical evidence that Barack Obama was declared the anti-Christ by none other than Jesus himself. Dan Wallace in a blog post at Reclaiming the Mind Ministries reports that the video is wildly popular and that many Christians find its arguments compelling. (I should mention that Dan thinks it's completely ridiculous, and that I really like Reclaiming the Mind Ministries which has no affiliation with the loony in the Youtube video).

The basic argument in the video goes like this :


Jesus says in Luke 10:18 "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven". The New Testament written in Greek, but many scholars believe that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic. The word for "lightning" in Hebrew is בָּרָקwhich is pronounced "bā∙rāk" (the Q at the end is pronounced like a K). Sounds like Barack right? (Hebrew and Aramaic are pretty close, so we'll just pretend they are identical here). Now as Aramaic scholar Steve Caruso points out, the Swahili word "Barack" does have a Hebrew etymology, but comes from the word בָּרַךְ or barak meaning "blessed", not בָּרָק or baraq meaning "lightning". The two words barak and baraq are pronounced similarly, but have no etymological connection. Just as the English words "write" and "right" sound the same but are unrelated.




Next the narrator decides that instead of looking at the word in Hebrew for "heaven" which is שָׁמַיִם pronounced sha∙may∙im, he would rather translate the word for "heights". Now the two most common words for "heights" in Hebrew are מָרֹום pronounced mar∙um and קֹומָה pronounced qu∙mah. That won't do of course so he takes the word בָּמָה which really means something more like an elevated hill, often referring to an alter or place of worship. Why does he pick this word? I bet you can guess what's coming can't you? Because it is pronounced ba∙mah. Now nevermind that this translation would mean that Jesus said "I saw Satan fall off a hill like lighting" which would be a really weird thing to say, and instead imagine him saying

"I saw Satan fall like Barack from Bama"

So we're almost there, now all we need to do is stick an "O" in front of "bamah". The Hebrew for "from" here would be מִן but that would give us Barack Min-bama, so he makes it an "O" instead which would mean "and". Giving us

"I saw Satan fall like Barack Obama"

Or as his disciples would have understood him

"I saw Satan fall like lighting and a hill" (huh?)

Or the equally strange

"I saw Satan fall like lighting and a height" (again, huh?)

Of course since Jesus said "heavens" and not "height" it would have sounded like

"I saw Satan fall like Barack Min Shamayim" or if we go with "heights" it would be
"I saw Satan fall like Barack Min Bamate" since "heights" is plural.

Unfortunately, I don't know anyone with either of those names...

So, now that you have suffered through all of that, let me present you with my own theory based on the same type of argument.

Jesus says in Jn 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life." The Hebrew word for "the way" is דֶּרֶךְ which is pronounced "Derek". My name is Derek. Therefore Jesus said

"I am Derek, the truth and the life. "

So there you have it. If Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, then by that same logic I am the second coming of Jesus (hint: I'm not). The real exegetical problem here is that just because a word in one language sounds like another word in a different language does not mean there is any relation to them. The word for "drive" is German is fahrt which sounds like "fart" in English. The above exegesis is like that. It sounds like fart, so it must be a secret message about farts.

If we want to just take the word "lightning" in the NT and switch it out with the Hebrew for lightning pronounced "Barack" I could also then cite the passage in Mt 28:2-3 which describes the angel at the tomb , was that angel really our President?

"An angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like Barack, and his clothes were white as snow."

And while I'm at it, the word in Hebrew for "shame" בֹּושׁ is pronounced "Bush" and the שׁ looks like a W. So "Bush" according to my Dictionary of Biblical Languages With Semantic Domains means:

"To have a painful feeling and emotional distress (sometimes to the point of despair), by having done something wrong, with an associative meaning of having the disapproval of those around them (Jdg 3:25; Jer 14:4), note: this wrong can refer to a social mistake, or a serious sin. Bring shame, cause disgrace, with an associative meaning of causing frustration, and loss of hope to the object one is shaming (2Sa 19:6)"

I report. You decide.

Christian Politics

In my last blog post I addressed the question of how we can know whether a President (or any political official) is a Christian, and suggested that the real question we need to ask (one that should affect our vote) is not about their personal faith, but about how they will govern, what they value, who they will represent, how they will conduct themselves... In this post I would like to explore that more concretely: What does it mean to govern in a Christ-like way?

In America when that question is evoked one immediately thinks of the Christian Right. I would like to propose however that the way the right - in other words, they way my church - has gone about this has been in a way that reflects the opposite values of the kingdom of God. Let me interject that I in many ways agree with the positions themselves, but what I object to, and see a profoundly un-Christ-like is how we go about pursuing those goals. For example I am pro-life, but I seriously question whether the pro-life movement has a reputation of grace and Christ-like love.

So what I would like to unpack is what the values of the kingdom of God are, and how they can be applied to political life. One way that Jesus defines the kingdom of God is in contrast to the "kingdom of Satan," or in John's terminology, in contrast to the "world". By 'world' here John means 'worldliness'. In other words, a system of values which Walter Wink calls the "domination system". This world system is run though force and dominance. The strong rise to the top, the weak lose. It's law of justice is the rule of quid pro quo - you get what you have coming to you. In stark contrast to this Jesus says that his kingdom is "not from this world" system. If it were a world-values-based kingdom Jesus continues - he would have used military might (a legion of angels) to attack the Romans. But the kingdom of God does not come to us by force, but comes in weakness and humility. The 'first' are made last, and the last first. The poor are blessed. Its law of justice is a redeeming justice that seeks to heal and mend. The true leader "will be the servant of all."

Throughout history many people have tried to adopt a "two kingdoms" approach to this, saying that while they acknowledge that the kingdom of God is the right way to go, it is unrealistic. In the "real world" things work differently, and if you want to move in the real political world you need to use manipulation, power, wealth, and force to survive and win in that world. Others have seen this world of dog-eat-dog dominance as so evil that they have concluded that it is simply not possible for a Christian to be involved in politics at all. I would like to propose here a third option - that we should be involved in every part of our society, that we should have a role in how our country and society is shaped and not simply abandon it, reducing faith to a private affair. But to do so we will need to find a way of being in politics that can be "in the world, but not of it". One of the models for this comes from the Anabaptist response to our prison system which involved introducing restorative justice. That's a practical example of how a completely new, deeply Christian paradigm can engage and reform the existing system. I've blogged a bit about this HERE.

For example a Christian would have to reject the dirty political campaigning that seeks to manipulate voters through fear, and instead appeal to the good in us, to serve, to engage, to believe and hope and work to make our country a more just place. It would need to be one that does not polarize people into 'us versus them', but seeks to reconcile both our divisions at home, and our divisions abroad. It would have to be a politics that has its focus on compassion, rather than on law. It would need to be a politics that is accountable, transparent, and honest with its citizens. It would need to be a politics that acknowledges our human penchant towards sin and pride and which is therefore open to hearing from the other side, rather than one that seeks to have absolute control, trumping the Constitution, the Congress, and the courts. It would have to be one that can see its errors and learn, rather than one that insists that it is beyond error. As if learning and adapting were a sign of weakness.

The issue here is not about specific policies. We might disagree on the best way to address poverty for example. But I think where we can agree is that the way that (neo) conservative politics has conducted itself, both in its governing and its campaigning, has been in a way that is diametrically opposed to the values of Christ and his kingdom. And what's more, the conservative church has uncritically aligned themselves with this new Constantinianism. So much so that for me to critique it virtually disqualifies me from being a conservative, even though many of the positions I hold are conservative both morally and theologically.

I think the church's tunnel vision here stems from a deeper issue. We cannot recognize this worldly behavior in a politician because we can't even recognize it in a pastor. I've gone to churches where the pastor was extremely arrogant, prideful, and judgmental. Even though there is, biblically speaking, no sin that is confronted more harshly by both Jesus and Paul than religious pride and judgmentalism, this pastor was not seen as someone with a profound sin problem, but as a "powerful preacher". Until we truly value Christ-like servant leadership in church, we will not as a church be able to instill those kingdom values in those people in our congregation who will go into politics, nor for that matter will we be able to disciple those who will become the future CEO's of our world in what it looks like to do that as Jesus would, and on and on. The values of the kingdom are not simply about being for or against something, it is a way of being in the world which is characterized by grace.

Is Obama a Christian?

There are basically two ways for an Evangelical to answer that question. One if focused on affirming a certain set of doctrinal statements, the other is focused on a conversion experience. I would maintain that the doctrinal definition is one that is often upheld by Evangelical leaders and academics (i.e. those with a voice in the public square), while the second relational definition is held by the masses.

For example in "American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving" sociologist Christian Smith views Evangelicalism in context of its doctrinal positions in contrast to Liberal Christianity. However in interview after interview the actual Evangelicals in Smith's sociological study continually define their own faith not in terms of orthodox doctrine per se, but as a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ”. What we see here a discrepancy between how Evangelicalism is understood as doctrinally focused by its leaders, and relationally focused by its laity.

Along these lines, former Moral Majority VP Cal Thomas bases his definition of an Evangelical on a set of doctrinal issues, and concludes that "Barack Obama is not a Christian". But if we instead ask whether Obama is a Christian based on the relational criteria that most Evangelicals actually hold to, we get a very different answer. Obama can speak very naturally about his relationship with Jesus Christ. For example addressing a church he tells the story of alter call experience when he was introduced to,

"someone named Jesus Christ. I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life. It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity one day and affirm my Christian faith... kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works." (full text HERE)

It is interesting to note that in the interview from the Chicago Sun-Times which Cal Thomas references as the sole source for his conclusion of Obama's non-Christian status, Obama is quoted there as well as describing himself as having a "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". Thomas omits that part, and only focuses on his doctrinal disagreements.

But let me throw a wrench into all of this. I would propose that whether a politician is a Christian (using either of the two definitions) is actually pretty irrelevant. What we need to know is how the Christian faith plays out in how he does politics. A politician's personal faith is something that I have no connection with since I do not know them personally, where we interact is on a political level, and so what I need to know is how they conduct their public and political life and the values and policies they have. Are those vales influenced by the character and values and way of Jesus? Are their actions and values reflecting Jesus and his kingdom? That is what matters to us.

We Evangelicals have in the past paid way too much attention to politician's personal faith, and way too little (if we paid attention at all) to what it would mean to govern in a Christ-like way, or what Jesus would do if he were them. As a result it has been enough for a politician to simply say they were "one of us" and we simply assumed that this must automatically translate into them making all the right choices, with relatively zero reflection on what those choices might be, or what Christian leadership on a political level might look like. This kind of naivete has lead to us evangelicals being easy targets for politicians to take advantage of. Former White House Aide David Kuo tells an eye opening insider story of this which you can check out online HERE.

I'd say based on this that this biblical illiteracy of what it means to be a Christian politician - or better how to be a politician in a "what-would-Jesus-do way" is of major importance. What I would like to do over the next few blog posts is to outline what I see as a biblical criteria for Jesus-style politics, leadership, power, and public life. But that will have to wait for the next post...

Yes we can

(If you can't see the above video, you can read the full transcript HERE)

I hesitate to talk about politics on this blog since it is so polarizing. But with the election of Obama I believe that we are experiencing something that transcends politics. Something of vital transformative significance that goes beyond the divides of red and blue, and indeed beyond the boarders of even our own country. Something with world significance.

You can see it in the people's faces as you watch the above video from Obama's acceptance speech. Faces of people who are longing to hope. Obama addresses the so called apathy of today's youth, and you can see two teenage girl's faces light up. Because in fact this younger generation is one that yearns to be involved, it is one that cares deeply about the world around it. If you want to appeal to youth today, you do so by appealing to service, and you can see that when Obama does, he connects.

Throughout the above speach you can see Obama connecting with "those who have been told for so long by so many to be cynical, and fearful, and doubtful of what we can achieve". That is the quintensencial spirit of post modernism. But as a post modern, I find that I deeply want to believe, I want to hope. I just can't put my faith into something that I can immediately see though as hollow. I can't help but be cynical when I can see that a politician is once again trying to sell me their agenda. But when Obama speaks I sense there is something real. Not just inspiringly and eloquently said. Not just another pretty package, but substantive and deep... It has been a long long time since I have felt that about any politician.

Looking at the reaction of the crowd that night, talking with people around me at work, and watching the reaction all around the world, I get the feeling I am not alone in this. All around the world, people who are accustomed to rolling their eyes, who are quick to be cynical, are finding themselves deeply moved. Something big is happening. Something bigger than one person, no matter how charismatic or inspiring. Something way bigger than politics. It is a chance for us to all pull together as one people. It's what should have happened - what could have happened after 9-11.

I remember right after 9-11 there was this amazing solidarity across the world. Everyone was an American that day. Everyone was in those two towers. But then something happened that turned that unity into polarizing animosity both within the U.S. and across the world. It became a time characterized by a spirit of fear, and "us vs. them" thinking. Red vs. blue. Conservatives vs. liberals. We may find when it comes to policy decitions that some good solutions come from the right, and others come from the left. Most will likely be a combination of both - mixing concerns of responsibility with rights. But whether we are right or left, one change we have all been waiting for, like people waiting for the sun to break through the gray clouds, is a change from fear to hope. A change from polarization to unity.

That spirit of hope is what we needed back in the aftermath of 9-11. It is what we have all been waiting for so long. It is how to bring out the best in us instead of the worst in us. It is how we can just maybe take the mess our world is in and make it better. But as is often the case in history, it takes the right man to come along and lead a people. It is never just about that man. It's never just about a Martin Luther, or a Martin Luther King. But a movement that ripples out and changes the world, much of the time can only start when someone truly great helps to give it a voice, and helps us to find our voice.

Yes we can.

Stem Cell Ethics Breakthrough

A study published in the Jan. 7 online edition on the journal Nature Biotechnology says that stem cells derived from human amniotic fluid (the fluid that surrounds the developing fetus) appear to offer many of the benefits of embryonic stem cells -- including the ability to grow into brain, muscle, bone and other tissues. The difference is that these stem cells are derived from the amniotic fluid in the womb, and unlike with embryonic stem cells, the embryo is unharmed. This means that we can potentially have the full benefits of stem cells without the ethical problem of taking a potential life to potentially save a life. Amniotic stem cells can be easily obtained though amniocentesis which is a safe procedure regularly done in older pregnant women to screen for birth defects by inserting a needle into the womb and drawing out the fluid.

Researchers from the Institute for Regenerative Medicine and Children's Hospital Boston found that amniotic cells in the laboratory can grow into all of the major types of cells, dividing at the rate of once every 36 hours. Researchers coaxed amniotic fluid stem cells to develop into brain cells and injected them into the skulls of mice with diseased brains. The stem cells replaced the diseased areas and appeared to create new connections with surrounding healthy neurons. Researchers also coaxed amniotic fluid stem cells to become bone cells and implanted them in a mouse. The study found the stem cells calcified and turned into dense, healthy bone. The researchers also coaxed amniotic fluid stem cells to develop into muscle, fat, blood vessel and liver cells. (source: Kaiser Network Daily Reports Jan 7)

In the past, adult stems cells, were put forward as a way to generate stem cells without harming life, but they had limitations: adult stem cells can only grow into the part that they were derived from while embryonic stem cells can grow into any part. Because amniotic stems cells are "somewhere between" embryonic stems cells and adult stem cells, it appears they have the advantages of both: Like embryonic stem cells they are versatile and can grow into all major groups, and like adult stem cells they are stable and easier to maintain in laboratory dishes and can be kept for years without developing tumors. (source: Newsweek)

Because the cells are a genetic match to the developing fetus, tissues grown from them in the laboratory will not be rejected if they are used to treat birth defects in that newborn, which is of course not possible with embryonic stem cells which would mean the destruction of that embryo. Dario Fauza, a pediatric surgeon at Children's Hospital in Boston is seeking permission from the FDA to try the method in children diagnosed with birth defects while in the womb. He hopes to grow replacement tissues from their own amniotic cells and use those tissues to repair their defects after birth. Additionally, because amniotic stem cells remain stable for years, the cells could be frozen, providing a personalized tissue bank for use later in life. (source: The Washington Post)

Rethinking Religion and Politics - Sam Harris on NPR

NPR's Talk of the Nation aired a program called Rethinking Religion and Politics a couple days ago (October 3, 2006) with two pastors, one liberal and the other conservative, both responding to Sam Harris' new book "Letter to a Christian Nation". You can hear the program by clicking on the link above. From there you can also surf your way to interviews with Harris and other info.

Overall I found Harris' arguments to be strawmen which in their inflammatory nature distracted from the few good points he was making. But rather than concentrate on that and get sidetracked into a "my belief is better than yours" debate, I thought I would address the one good point that Sam Harris was (rather badly) making: Since religion is in world and national politics so corrosive, we should keep it out of public discourse altogether.

The program on NPR ended up focusing on whether this means that people should leave their values and morals out of public life, which is of course absurd as the two pastors argued. I would like to raise a more subtle proposition: In a public discourse where there is diversity and disagreement an argument cannot be based on unquestioned authority (like "the Bible says so") because we do not all agree on those authority sources. Instead each proposition needs to be argued on its own merit in a public setting. This would mean not that religion does not play a role in public life, but that it is communicated in a way that is accessible to all people.

What I think Harris does not comprehend is that even Atheists have a set of values and assumptions of what is valued that they bring with them. For instance they may value human rights, or value human freedom. These are core values that they share with most of the Western world. Even if we would strip away the religious garb of all faiths and simply converse in the universal language of these values, we would still find that there are fundamental disagreements about these core values. For example the West would focus on human rights and freedom, while a fundamentalist Moslem may argue that the core value is neither of these but instead purity which is why women should be covered and thieves' hands chopped off. On a core level what we think is "self evident" about what is most important in life is in fundamental disagreement.

Removing the religious garb from this and presenting it in a "secularized" language may enable a more transparent discussion, but it will not remove the fundamental and profound disagreement that leads to wars and violence. So while I agree that it is valuable to learn to "translate" our values and beliefs into a language that is accessible to people who come from a different background, I think the "imagine there's no Heaven" approach to solving the world's problems is terribly naive because it fails to see the values of who we are and what life is about that lie at the heart of faith and instead focuses only on the superficial trappings. Abolishing religion would not solve anything because we would still have differing core beliefs and values about who we are, and about what matters in life that are at the root of all faiths (including Atheism and Secular beliefs systems). A world where no one has any values at all, would be peaceful, but it would also mean that everyone was lobotomized.