Don't be Double-minded............ November 5,
2006
By Ron Miller
A man enjoys sex with a male prostitute while
using a mind-altering substance. There seems to be nothing newsworthy
about such a statement. It's happening everday all over the world.
But when the man is an ordained minister, the pastor of a church,
and the president of a national religious body, as well as a prominent
spokesperson for denying civil rights to homosexuals (specifically,
the right to marry),then the newsworthiness of the story suddenly
skyrockets.
The leadership of the national organization has
expelled this man from office, arguing that he has demonstrably
shown that he has acted immorally. But what precisely in this
behavior is immoral? Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians
would argue that homosexual activity is intrinsically wrong and
that is the source of what is immoral. Many Mainline and Liberal
Chrisians would claim that the immorality lies in his adultery
and duplicity.
Duplicity has the same root, to make double, as
our word double-minded. In the Letter of James, one of the twenty-seven
books of the New Testament, the author writes that a double-minded
person "must not expect to receive anythng from the Lord."
(James 1:6) We all sin at some point.The root of the word sin
in Hebrew and Greek means to miss the mark. Like an arrow that
fails to hit the bull's eye, we all act in ways that miss the
mark. We act with insufficient love. We act from a lower level
of consciousness than is required in a given situation. All human
beings have the experience of sinning.
What is it that makes this man's sin especially
repellent? I would argue that it is his duplicity, his double-mindedness.
He lives one life with his wife and another with his gay lover.
He preaches one thing to his congregation but lives by a standard
that is not what he preaches. He represents one position in his
political advocacy but seems to be approving of another position
by his private life. Such double-mindedness, according to the
Letter of James, does not gain God's blessing. Rather than approve
of such double-mindedness, the Sermon on the Mount encourages
us to be "pure of heart". And the Danish philosopher
and religious thinker, Kierkegaard, asserts that purity of heart
means to will one thing--the opposite of double-mindedness.
So for myself and many Christian Liberals, this
man's sexual orientation is irrelevant. The moral principles for
gay people and straight people are the same. Sexual relations
should be honest, respectful, and caring. Being dishonest in one's
committed relationship to a sexual partner is therefore wrong
and immoral. Making public pronouncements that give the lie to
one's private life is double-minded and therefore immoral.
It must be added, however, that when a society
denies civil rights to one of its constituent groups, the society
takes on some responsibility for the subsequent deviant behavior
exhibited by members of that group. We speak of behavior as deviant
when it is "off the road" (i.e. de via) of what is societally
approved. Women, slaves, and homosexuals have often been forced
to act "off the road" when they had no other way to
attain legitimate goals. Read the fascinating story of Tamar in
the thirty-eight chapter of Genesis.
Would this man have lost the approval of his congregation
if he had announced that he was gay, that he was going to divorce
his wife, and that his intention was to enter a committed relationship
with another man? Definitely. Perhaps that is the sin that needs
to more closely examined than the one that is being scrutinized
by the public. When people are forced to deny who they are or
to accept being reduced to a minority with no legal rights, deviant
behavior is bound to happen. The homophobia, so long encouraged
by Christian groups like the one's in this man's story, is the
greater sin in this case but remains the sin meriting little media
attention.
Proud
To Be An American
5/16/06
It
was a CNN special. A Ku Klux Klan rally in Alabama. A small group
of some fifteen klansmen shouting obscenities about Blacks and
asserting that Alabama should be an all-white state. A menacing
crowd surrounded the white-clad klansmen. But protecting them
was a cordon of police officers. I was struck by the fact that
at least half of them were African-American. Their faces were
impassive as they protected the klansmen from the angry crowd.
What
a great country this is! John Stuart Mill, John Locke, Thomas
Jefferson, James Madison….they were all there on the TV
screen. And our Constitution was there too. Tolerance, civility,
respect for other views, protection of minority opinions….herein
lies our true greatness.
And
the irony of it all. Did those klansmen appreciate the fact that
they were being protected by the very people they were excoriating?
Prejudice of that sort lives so far below the level of rational
thought that I sincerely doubt that the irony of the situation
crossed their collective consciousness. But for those with eyes
to see, here was America at its best.
A
Lost Gospel Fragment
5/26/06
Another
bit of papyrus was recently discovered in the sands of Egypt.
No official translation has yet been published but here is my
amateur attempt to translate the Coptic text. The manuscript is
in fairly good condition but there are a few places where the
text cannot be clearly deciphered.
Two
men approached Jeshu when he was passing through a small fishing
village on the northern shore of the <…> of Galilee.
“Rabbi,” one of them said, “we have often heard
you speak and have been deeply moved by your words. We want our
lives to be open to this reign of God which you proclaim and we
strive to love God <…> mind, and strength, as you
have said, and to love our neighbor as ourself.”
“You
must not be far then from God’s reign,” responded
<…>”
“But,
Rabbi, you must understand that we have been together for seven
years as husband and wife. We exchanged our vows privately <….>
and have lived together faithfully ever since. Having no children
of our own, we are raising nine abandoned children from our village.
Our fishing business thrives and we are able to care for these
children and help other people in need as well.”
“You
are clearly heirs of <,,,,> reign and you are blessed. Why
do you yet seem so troubled?” Jeshu asked them this, knowing
already how much pain was in their hearts. “Because our
religious teachers and many of our neighbors say that we are sinners
and that our love is perverse and evil. Tell us, Rabbi, are they
right?”
Jeshu
replied, “Such teachers and neighbors know nothing of the
deepest teaching of the Torah. If they have not learned compassion,
then <….> is useless. Look at the people passing us
on this road. Some pick up their cup with their right hand and
some with their left. My Father’s creation is diverse but
always good.”
“But
why then, Rabbi,” asked one of the men, “does the
Torah teach that it is an abomination for a man to lie with a
man as with a woman”? Jeshu answered, “There are acts
between men, as between men and women, that are cruel and hurtful,
like the men who wanted to rape Lot’s guests in Sodom. But
when sexual <….> is honest and respectful, it is no
different for two men or two women or a man and a woman. Go to
your homes in peace. You are true children of our heavenly <the
manuscript has deteriorated from this point>.
It
is my hope that as this new text becomes public, it will help
Christians in some of their discussions and debates today on this
question. There are, of course, some who will say that because
this story is not in the four canonical gospels, it has no value
for us today.
From
Commissar to Commandant: the Recent Papacy
Sept. 8, 2005
When John Paul II was elected pope in 1978, a Jesuit friend of
mine in Rome telephoned me to say that the assembled cardinals
had elected "the best of the commissars". The subsequent
twenty-seven years proved him to be right on target. The
impetus of the Second Vatican Council died with John XXIII.
Paul VI had neither the vision nor the courage to move forward.
He failed to meet three of the great challenges brought to the
Council: the birth control issue,the legal requirement of clerical
celibacy, and the denial of the sacrament of holy orders to women.
Those three unaddressed issues continue to haunt the church today,
rendering its voice largely irrelevant to thinking people anywhere
in the world.
John Paul II stated in an early interview that he felt that God
had chosen him for the papacy because of his ideas and that, therefore,
to change his ideas would be to betray God's choice. This,
of course, was a tragic misconception and it led to the stagnancy
of his pontificate. Families continued to suffer by his
failure to see the basic sanity of family planning through birth
control. The clergy continued to disintegrate through the
absurd requirement that they all be celibate males. Every
study to date shows the failure of the law of clerical celibacy.
The recent work of Elizabeth Abbott indicates that 40% of the
priests in America had regular sexual partners, about 50% different
sex and about 50% same sex. Another 15% had occasional sexual
partners. The whole scandalous attempt by the American bishops
to hush up the rampant sex scandals within the clergy finally
exploded on to the world stage. These were bureaucrats who
loved the facade of the Church more than they loved its children.
The news came as no surprise to anyone who knew what went on behind
the closed doors of ecclesiastical power. And women, of
course, remained outside the structure, even though it was they
who did most of the real work of the Church.
It's an interesting study to contrast this stagnant leadership
of John Paul II with the dynamic leadership of the Dalai Lama.
The Dalai Lama moves easily beyond tradition to the real need
of the moment. When asked, for example, about homosexuality,
he stated that it was traditionally seen as wrong in Buddhism
but then went on to say that his own experience with the homosexual
community today led him to see that the tradition needs to be
changed. This was the kind of leadership that John Paul
II could not imagine, let alone embody. Within his static
framework he was, of course, a good and holy man and he did whatever
could be done as long as he could avoid the reality of a changing
world. In this he proved to be a good commissar.
Ratzinger brings a new style to the papacy. Like his immediate
predecessors, he has chosen to be a conservative. In other
words, he has chosen to defend the fortress Church that had existed
prior to John XXIII and was quickly rebuilt after that great saint's
demise. It's important to understand that the conservative
posture of the Catholic hierarcy today is a choice. Cardinal
George said in a recent interview: "We tried liberalism and it
failed". The conservative bishops at the Second Vatican
Council were largely ignorant men, often corrupt men. Their
conservatism was not a choice but a mere circumstance of their
human limitations. These new conservatives are highly
intelligent men. Benedict XVI may well be the most intelligent
pope in centuries. Cardinal George was the chair of a philosophy
department at a Jesuit University. Their conservatism does
not stem from ignorance but from choice. They have decided
that a prophetic Church (the kind envisaged by John XXIII) is
simply too dangerous and that it is safer to keep the windows
closed that John XXIII tried to open.
A theologian who attended a recent ordination ceremony remarked
that these were good young men but that there was not a prophet
among them. The vision of a collegial Church that guided
Vatican II has been replaced by a bureaucratic Church, one that
follows orders and is more than willing to be a rubber stamp for
anything Rome decides. It is a safe Church and one that
will offer security to the many Catholics who don't want to wrestle
with the complexity of a real world. It is a nostalgic Church
that will offer solace to the many Catholics who don't want to
face the challenges of our times. As one of Ratzinger's
biographers wrote, the new Pope's goal is to maintain a Church
that will be familiar and comfortable for the inhabitants of the
little Bavarian town that he calls home.
There will be a change, however, with this new papacy. Whereas
the Slavic world has a way of letting things slide, the Germanic
world tends to be thorough. Grundlichkeit or "thorougness"
is an important German value. I found it interesting that
in building the bunker set for the movie "Downfall" an exact duplicate
of Hitler's bunker was built, including rooms that would not be
used in making the film. Unless you know the German mindset,
a fact like that is difficult to grasp. Benedict XVI will
bring micro-management to a new level. He will not tolerate
ambiguity, compromise, or laxness. John Paul II might have
let some things slide but this new pope will be an enforcer.
Where will this all end? This backlash will eventually weaken.
The wisdom of family planning and population control will prevail.
Married people (both those in heterosexual and homosexual unions)
will be admitted to the clergy. Women and homosexuals will
have an equal and recognized place at the table. Dialogue
will replace exclusivism. The last vestiges of the old imperial
Church will disappear and a collegial community of faith will
emerge. The timetable for all of this? As Jesus
said, "No one knows that, not even the Son, but only the Father/Mother
of us all."
Four
Years Later
Sept 7, 2005
September 11, 2005 is the fourth anniversary of a tragic event
that changed our nation's history forever. Anniversaries
like this are natural occasions to ask ourselves what we have
learned during the interval, what we did right or wrong, and what
we can do better in the future. Somehow this anniversary
leads me to a book I recently read. It is Martin Buber's
A Land of Two Peoples with a commentary and a new preface by Paul
Mendes-Flohr. Paul Mendes-Flohr is the world's leading authority
on Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig. I was privileged to
meet him a few years ago and was struck by the immense knowledge
of this man, as well as his deep human understanding. His
commentary is invaluable in reading these talks and essays of
Martin Buber stretching from 1918 to Buber's death in 1965.
From the first of these writings to the last, Buber has one great
thesis: both Jews and Arabs have a legitimate claim to this one
land. Buber called for an appreciation of the Arab population
and challenged Jews coming to Palestine to learn Arabic, to appreciate
their Arab neighbors, and to enter deeply into their culture.
He pleaded with his fellow Jews not to act like imperialisitc
colonizers, not to be Euro-centric in their prejudices and attitudes.
Buber felt that the only viable future was a shared world based
on economic and cultural cooperation between Jews and Arabs.
In other words, it was important for the Arabs to see the Jewish
settlers, not only as friendly neighbors, but as people who could
work with them so that both people could reap economic and cultural
benefits from the exchange. Buber's goal was one nation
in which there would be shared representation by Arabs and Jews.
Buber's voice was often ignored and more frequently silenced by
those who felt that his program was too idealistic, too unrealistic.
His opponents felt that the Arabs were backward and ignorant,
not to be trusted, not worthy to be treated as equals. And
it was that approach, of course, that has led to the current impasse
in the Middle East. After serving up the sop of the Gaza
Strip, Israel is now ready to retreat into a fortress existence
for the foreseeable future. Current research indicates that
by and large Israeli Jews and Arabs still do not know each other,
seldom speak the other's language, rarely show a sense of what
Buber called "feeling the other side".
If Buber had been listened to, perhaps he could have been the
Gandhi or the Martin Luther King ofo the Middle East.
Perhaps we would be experiencing a strong nation today in which
Arabs and Jews lived as brothers and sisters. But this was
not the course the Zionist movement chose and only the future
will reveal what course to peace is still possible. It must
be an interesting experience for young Israelis to read the material
in this book and to reflect on what "might have been".
This is the bridge I see to our own situation. From the
beginning, we did almost everything wrong. Declaring a "war"
on terrorism set the stage for a confrontation, a conflict of
civilizations. The door to dialogue was closed from the
very beginning. Although President Bush was
advised to stop using the "crusader" language he first used on
Sept. 12th, he has never ceased to be a crusader. American
policy has consistently proceeded from a tribal consciousness
of good guys and bad guys, black hats and white hats, a coalition
of the good and an axis of evil. And four years later, we
are so much worse off than we were. We have made enemies
faster than we can kill them. We are responsible for the
death of untold thousands of Iraquis, as well as some two thousand
Americans, not to mention all those on both sides who face the
rest of their lives physically maimed or psychologically damaged.
What an extraordinary loss in a totally unnecessary war, an unjust
war, an obscene war, an imperialistic war, a war with no foreseeable
end in sight.
When Israelis read the prescient words of Buber, they realize
that they can't go back in time and undo what has been done.
And we too cannot go back and listen to the sage advice given
to us by our allies: Germany, France, and Russia. Not to
mention a host of other voices both in our country and outside
our country begging us not to invade Iraq and pleading with us
to begin to seek the roots of this terrorism by the patient work
of dialogue and understanding.
For the Israelis, it has been forty years now since Buber's voice
was last heard live. For us it has been only four years
since wiser voices urged us to a different course. It would
certainly take a miracle for the Israelis to experience teshuva,
repentence, as they reflect on the error of beieving that they
were "a people without a land finding a land without a people."
Buber's words of 1921 are a blast on the shofar calling Israel
to teshuvah today: "We do not aspire to return to the Land of
Israel with which we have inseparable historical and spiritual
ties in order to suppress another people or to dominate them".
(p. 61) And the words of wise people all over our
globe begging us to seek a path of dialogue rather than the crusader
path of conquest still call Americans to repentence today.
It is still possible for us to change our course. It must
begin with Buber's challenge to "feel the other side". We
must understand how so many Muslims and Muslim countries feel
after so many years in which their national interests were set
aside by the totally one-sided goals of our self-interest translated
into foreign policy. Sensitively and wisely we must build
paths to communication, mutual respect, mutual understanding,
dialogue, and peace. It's important that we act now, after
four years of ignorance and insensitivity, and do not condemn
ourselves to look back at forty years of tragic errors.
Thoughts
on Gays
October
12,2004
Where
is all this excitement coming from regarding Kerry's remark about
Cheney's daughter? People are reacting as though he insulted her.
It wasn't as though he accused her of embezzling or liking child
pornography. He wasn't accusing her of anything. Would it have
been OK if he had mentioned that she was left-handed or right-handed?
In pointing out that her homosexuality is her nature, not her
lifestyle, Kerry was simply stating what anyone knows who either
is a homosexual or has ever had a serious conversation with one.
Bush, of course, was not sure and subsequent polls of Americans
indicate that most Americans are not sure either. Doesn't it seem
a bit strange that people who are so sure that we're winning the
war in Iraq (I wonder what it would look like if we were losing
it?) are so unsure about the fact that some people are born with
a sexual orientation that is predominantly homosexual?
