Jesus wasn’t nice to them.

He called them names: hypocrites; white-washed tombs, full of rotting corpses; unwashed dishes; serpents; a brood of vipers; murderers. He even called them “children of the devil.”

He challenged their God-concept within the public square and warned others not to follow in their wicked footsteps. He mocked their prayers as “meaningless repetition,” and challenged both their integrity and ability to make a distinction between what is morally right and wrong, or to even speak anything worthwhile to the people.

“You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good?” ( Matthew 12:34)

Jesus accused his contemporary religious leaders of creating and employing heavy burdens on people which they themselves were either unable or unwilling to follow, warning the crowds not to emulate their hypocrisy. He called out their motivation to feigned and self-righteous piety as nothing more than a desire for public recognition and a hope put not in the God of Abraham, but rather in their positions of prestige and their coveted seats of power and honor.

He told the religious authorities their attempts at proselytizing merely made folks “twice as much a child of hell” as themselves. In one story, Jesus even has himself a “Temple Tantrum,” taking the time to make a bull-whip which he used to interrupt the religious leaders while zealously running the animals of sacrifice out of the area, flipping over tables, and pouring their ill-gotten sacramental coinage out onto the floor.

He said they turned the holy place of prayer into a “den of thieves.”

Jesus wasn’t pulling any punches.

Neither should we.

Much ink has been spilt analyzing the fact that an overwhelming 81% of white American evangelicals voted for Donald J. Trump in 2016 — and just over two years into his first term, an astonishing majority continue to pledge their allegiance to the president. Trump enjoys a favorability rating nearly double the rest of the country among white evangelicals, which make up the majority of his GOP’s #MAGA base.

Despite a litany of what many previously hoped would be moral deal breakers for the party once described as, “the party of family values” (such as his braggadocious admission to sexual assault in the Access Hollywood tapes, the proven hush-money-payments to cover up his adulterous affair with a porn star, and at least two dozen credible accusations of rape and other sexual misconduct, etc.), Trump continues to reap the benefits of an almost cult-like support from the voting bloc which traces its roots to the 1980s Moral Majority movement.

The echoes of that era’s cries to “Make America Great Again!” come aligned with a renewed, emboldened, and even blatant racism. From Trump’s imagined Obama-birther-ism conspiracy, to announcing his own presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants “murderers and rapists,” to hailing tiki-torch-toting Nazis in Charlottesville as “very fine people,” culminated this week in his tweeted attacks of four freshman Democratic Congresswomen of color to ‘Go back’ where they came from, Trump’s propensity to pander to white supremacists is nothing new.

His lack of compassion to the plight of migrant families from Central America at the country’s southern border is now accompanied by sworn testimony of the horrific conditions in the detention camps from journalists and government representatives alike, along with irrefutable images, court documents, Congressional testimony, and all kinds of definitive evidence of innocent young children and toddlers lacking even basic sanitary conditions or care. This, on the heels of being forcibly removed from their parents and guardians and housed under armed guard on overcrowded concrete floors surrounded by chain-link fencing as a result of the “Zero-Tolerance Policy” enforced by the administration.

As I review the president’s executive orders, his press interviews, and daily Twitter feed while simultaneously reading the supportive reactions from folks within my own religious tradition of Evangelicalism, I’m reminded of another seemingly harsh saying from Jesus:

“Whoever receives a child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to have a heavy millstone tied around their neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the seas” (Matthew 18:6).

Damn. Seems a bit harsh.

So might this — yet it is entirely appropriate and perhaps necessary to avoid confusion over what it means to be a follower of Christ. One simply cannot be a follower of the life, teachings, and example of Jesus and also support Donald J. Trump and his policies.

It’s just not possible.

While most often a unifying figure, the Jesus of the scriptures was downright divisive regarding his willingness to stand up against bigotry and religious hypocrisy, and equally steadfast in his commitment to standing in solidarity with the marginalized and the oppressed. Imputed with divine wisdom, Christ was deeply dedicated to defending the defenseless, and seemed entirely comfortable with calling out the fundamental errors found in what he described as the faithless teachings of the religious leaders of his day.

If we are unwilling to do the same, how dare we call ourselves followers of Christ?Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, “So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an arch-defender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by           the church’s silent — and often even vocal — sanction of things as they are.”

Even our secular institutions are doing more. Recently, the United States House of Representatives voted to condemn Trump’s use of race-baiting language by a vote of 240 to187. Only four Republicans broke with their conservative colleagues and called his racist attacks unacceptable, while others such as Sen. Lindsey Graham obfuscated the context and instead directed his animosity toward the Congresswomen whom he described as “…a bunch of communists. They hate Israel. They hate our own country.”

In coming days, it seems we’re destined to repeat a familiar dynamic that has thus far defined this administration in the midst of deep-seated partisan disagreement. Republicans will continue to claim the condemnation is clearly inspired by partisan politics and a Democratic party preoccupied with bitterness and hatred toward the president and country. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats are literally going on-record offering a formal rebuke from Congress of a sitting president for the first time in more than 100 years, sending what one lawmaker called “a message that the country will not tolerate bigotry, racism, hate, xenophobia, Islamophobia.”

But what about white evangelicals?

Are Trump’s biggest and most staunch supporters willing to abandon the teachings of the founder of their faith in favor of supporting the politics of this president? Will white evangelicals continue to turn a blind eye to his repetitive racist rhetoric and willfully voice their support of Trump?

Will they remain relatively apathetic to the mental, emotional, physical, and sexual abuse — even deaths! — of immigrant children confined to cages at our nation’s southern border simply because they don’t have appropriate documentation?

Will these self-professing Christians carry on ad nauseam with their excuses of supporting Trump’s immoral actions and policies, regardless of their direct conflict with even the most simple and elementary teachings of the very Jesus they claim to follow?

As unfortunate as it is unconscionable, it appears many are…and while saying so may not be popular, and is likely to invite ample amounts of criticism and disagreement, it must be said again: One simply cannot be a follower of the life, teachings, and example of Jesus and also support Donald J. Trump and his policies.

Based on the red letters in the scriptures, I am convinced if Christ were physically present, he too would join me in unleashing his harshest chastisement for those who hypocritically claim to follow his teachings, yet are seemingly marching in the opposite direction.

Recently, I again outed myself as an Evangelical – though progressive I may be.
And while I’m quite comfortable donning the label, there are admittedly more than just a few things I’d like to see change in existing communities of faith that also identify as followers of Jesus.

But some traditions run deep within the subculture of Christianity.

I’ve skirted around the edges of tipping over some of our sacred cows before – namely, questioning the primary place of the sermon in community gatherings which feeds our addiction to answers and the inherent exclusivity and elitism found in the current expression of church membership – but don’t worry…it’s nothing that crazy.

I just want to mess with Communion a little bit.

Some call it “The Lord’s Supper, ” or “The Eucharist.” Regardless of what we call it, or how many times our community of faith expression practices it (weekly? bi-weekly? monthly? more? less?), it’s a significant event in the life of a local church – and therefore seen as an important event in the life of a Christian.

It has the potential to be beautiful – and I’ve been privileged to be a part of more than a few sacred moments centered around the breaking of bread and the drinking of wine in remembrance of the life and work of Jesus. We remembered together, and brought back to life in our own conversations the teachings and example of The Christ we claim to follow.

Such a thing is a holy moment, and I am convinced it holds the power to transform death to life.

But sadly, this is not always the case – and I fear that is, at least in part, because of the way in which this sacrament is not only practiced, but protected by the church and her tradition.

In fact, that may be the most damning indictment of how far from the original “Last Supper” we have come.

Some years after Jesus left his disciples here on Earth to continue doing the great work he had done – declaring that with the help of the Spirit of God which dwells in each of us we would “do greater works than these” if we followed after his example – an early community of faith in the ancient port city of Corinth got a fairly stern talking to in a letter written by The Apostle Paul about… you guessed it …Communion.

He even said their meeting as a church did more harm than good.

Paul had heard through the grapevine that when Christians in the city came together as a church, there were divisions among them – evidenced by the way they practiced this sacred remembrance of Jesus. When they gathered together, some would eat and drink their fill while others had not yet come to the table. Some even stuffed their faces until they were drunk, and allowed others within the community to go hungry.

Side note:  Paul was the famed apostle to the Gentiles – bringing to the entire known world a stunning revelation that the acceptance, grace, and love of God extended far beyond the previously established borders of ‘the chosen’ nation of Israel, and now included the entire world – those who were previously outcast and marginalized and found to be unworthy were now declared worthy, celebrated and grafted into the gracious family of God along with the rest of humanity because of that which they were called to remember – the life, teachings, and example of Jesus – the very visible image of an invisible God… the Word made flesh.

Forgetting this, it seems, was at the core of the self-centeredness of the church in Corinth …and problematic to the Apostle who would go so far as to tell another faith community that even circumcision – the sign of the covenant made between Abraham, the father of the faith, and YHVH – was not essential for salvation.

He even cussed them out in a letter (the book of Galatians – which is today celebrated, though in a sanitized and edited form, as part of the inspired collection of the words of God in our Bibles) for demanding that those who previously did not belong and now did had to somehow conform to the old rules and old laws put in place before the divine revelation of Jesus. It’s like they forgot everything he taught.

Which brings us back to Communion. “This do in remembrance of me.”

What, exactly are we remembering?

Perhaps what Jesus meant, in the context of this Last Supper he shared with his friends, was to remember all he had taught them – summed up that same night with acts of service, kindness, and a command to love one another.

Invited into that Supper were not only the favorite and closest disciples, or the ones who “got it.”

And even they were a band of misfits.

Though he tried really hard, Peter missed the point so much that he swung 180 degrees – from “don’t touch me” to “bathe my whole body” – in only a moment …and then later that night denied ever even knowing Jesus.

Nearly all of them ran from Jesus’ side for fear of the consequences from the very same religious leaders Jesus had taught them not to fear.

And then, of course, there’s Judas… the one who sold out Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, described by one disciple as having been taken over by the Devil himself. And yet even he was invited to the table, and served by God incarnate with welcome.

Perhaps when we celebrate doing this act in remembrance of the One we call Messiah, we too should welcome all of those who don’t believe exactly as we do, rather than making a distinguishing declaration that it’s only for a select group of people.

Perhaps we should welcome even those who don’t call Jesus ‘Messiah’.

Perhaps we too should serve and welcome the doubters, deniers and betrayers as readily as Jesus himself did.

Perhaps the act of “remembering Christ” in our communal celebration has more to do with our lives outside of that moment – and acts as a re-centering point to engage with others in the way in which he did – wholly rejecting the overbearing rules and regulations of the religious institution and instead opting for the holy law of love.

Perhaps we would do well to remember the multiple times (over 45 separate occasions recorded in the Gospel narratives alone) Jesus crossed over religious or cultural boundaries in order to stand in solidarity with the marginalized.

Perhaps we would do well to remember the hungry, the poor, the outcast in our communities; and rather than getting drunk on the sweet wine of our dogma and doctrine, invite even our enemies to drink deep from the well of the life-giving water that flows beyond boundaries of man made dams of religious protocol.

Perhaps we can commit to quench our community’s thirst for justice by breaking down the barriers in our own lives that promote systemic inequality and intolerance.

Perhaps when we take communion, we would do well to remember the words of jesus spoken moments after they had shared their meal:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

That type of communion would, I think, be something worth celebrating.

I’ve been attempting to both give and receive unmerited grace and unconditional love for years. This journey with Jesus has made me increasingly generous toward others in my self-described ‘orthodoxy’  – even extending to folks from various beliefs and traditions and backgrounds, with everlasting implications – just as I believe Jesus taught.

That path has led me to all kinds of conclusions about not only how to live my own life, but how to think about the lives of others, as well as the mind-bending concept of eternal life as talked about by Jesus, and then by his fan club in the centuries that followed.

2, 000 years removed from the time of Jesus, I suspect we’ve lost in translation much of the original proclamation of ‘good news’ – just look at what our bad theology has done to people who publicly claim to follow the guy, and you’ll see my point.

Everyone, Jesus said, would know we learn from and follow him by our love for one another (in spite of all of our differences). Yet it seems – at least for those who identify as ‘evangelicals’ – the rest of the world knows us by some other things – and more than a few of the things we’re known for aren’t very good news at all – just a lot of infighting on who’s in and who’s out of this elite religious club of ‘Christianity.’

Still, I can confidently say, ‘Yes, I’m an evangelical.’

Self-appointed gatekeepers within the broader evangelical community may declare that I’m not ‘evangelical’ enough because of my evolving views on matters of faith and life – everything from the narrative of the bible, the person and work of Jesus, the doctrines of hell and salvation to what that all means about the way in which God has been presented in scripture and by the church and how all of that relates to the Jesus story.

Yet I must defer to what I see in the stories of the incarnation of Jesus – something the original ‘good news’ proclamation in the second chapter of the gospel according to Luke makes clear :: this good news is good news for everybody…and increasing numbers of us believe that if it isn’t good news for everybody, it isn’t good news for anybody.

And here, many self-identified ‘Evangelicals’ may disagree with us. Many declare this good news is available to everybody – so long as they subscribe to a particular set of beliefs and align all theological perspectives to their own; so long as they pray a particular prayer or live with a specific set of like-minded values; so long as they see each of the ancient documents collected in the biblical library as a divinely inspired sacred text, and view the modern day and future world within a strict and literal interpretation of that text; so long as they are never doubting, but maintain a laser-focused faith in all truths propagated by their own institutionalized religious system.

For some, these and other litmus tests make up what it means to be an ‘evangelical.’

I’m reminded of the words by Inigo Montoya in The Princess Bride ::

‘You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.’

In recent days, other friends have written about what they mean when they talk about being ‘evangelical’ – Brandan Robertson posted here,  and Ben Irwin here.

What it means to be an evangelical – or a Christian, for that matter – is not an altogether new conversation; in fact, years ago my friend Tony Jones, among others, asked if it was past time to hang up the boots on that term, including dropping the label ‘progressive’ and suggested ‘Incarnational Christian’ by popular vote of his readers and some theological musings of his own. I liked – and still like – the term, for various reasons.

Yet I’ve been often asked if I identify as an evangelical – and it seems that question is becoming increasingly more common as I’ve partnered with a few friends around an effort we call OPEN  – a newly created network seeking to organize and optimize progressive evangelical and non-denominational churches, organizations and people.

While my response to that question somewhat depends on the person and circumstance, I quite often find myself summing up this post in which I admittedly acknowledge enjoying how Rob Bell once responded to that same question ::

‘What do you mean by that word?

Do you mean someone who believes the good news, the gospel, the open tomb – that there’s a whole new world bursting forth right here in the midst of this one?

Someone with a bouyant, hopeful vision of what’s possible because of the truth that God is up to something in the world and every one of us can be a part of it?

Because if that’s what you mean, I’m in…’

The term ‘evangelical’ – which has been hijacked and taken hostage by a very narrow voting block with a few very narrow policies and perspectives – needs to be reclaimed, repostured and reoriented toward its original meaning as a declaration of ‘good news’ – not the false good news of empire (whether secular or religious); but instead reframed as the good news of a new creation being made possible, right here and now – in and through and amidst and among and from each and every one of us. In the words of the video ::

‘I say we take the word back – evangelical means good news – and it’s good news for everybody who doesn’t fit in; it’s good news for everybody who’s hungry and needs food, everybody’s who thirsty, everybody who just needs a home; it’s everybody who needs a helping hand to get them up out of the dust and to brush off that dirt so they can have some worth and dignity.’

I too believe the good news of God’s love for everybody – and am convinced as a bearer of this good news – as an evangelical – I have an opportunity to extend the good news of that love in both word and deed – as personified in the person, teachings, work and life of Jesus of Nazareth – to every single person.

‘I’m an evangelical. and I believe in good news…for everybody.’

Leading up to – and in the immediate wake of – the SCOTUS decision in support of marriage equality in all 50 states, a number of religious and faith community leaders contacted me asking, ‘how should we respond?’

The majority of these requests came from pastors and churches who are currently unable to support same sex relationships, based on their conservative biblical interpretation and theological perspective – yet almost all recognize that their religious communities have historically not been very welcoming to the LGBTQ community.

They also realize, along with many others, that the journey of faith is a matter of being willing and open to having a relationship with God – and that each and every person is welcome under the banner of the unconditional love and radical hospitality of Jesus Christ.

This tension in which many religious folks live is a real one – and  has been heightened by the culture war rhetoric reaching an almost fever pitch in the anticipation and aftermath of this weekend’s ruling.

Many evangelical leaders quickly took to the interwebs to rally the troops in the wake of the decision. at Christianity Today, the headline read,  ‘Outrage and Panic’ Are Off Limits, Say Evangelical Leaders on Same-Sex Marriage while simultaneously posting this declaration of dissent from approximately 100 evangelical leaders.

Franklin Graham declared God had more reason now to send his judgment to America (despite apparently ignoring these atrocities in our nation’s past),  and self-proclaimed conservative theological ‘expert’ on homosexuality Robert Gagnon promoted this fear-mongering piece in which the first line declared the date of the ruling to be a ‘day of national tragedy.’ Social media outlets followed suit, and the praise of likeminded believers linked hand-in-hand with the dehumanization of those from an opposing perspective.

There is a better way.

Living within the tension of acknowledging it is possible to engage in community with those we may have disagreements with – even on matters of theological perspective and conviction – a number of churches and pastors are seeking a path of reconciliation. They acknowledge the landscape has shifted – marriage equality is now the law of the land – and the calls to battle for traditional marriage have been muffled by the majority view and legal ruling that same sex couples deserve the same legal protection in marriage as their heterosexual counterparts.

These pastors know they’re living into a new reality.

Of course, being unable to announce from the pulpit this weekend that their churches are now open and affirming, these churches sought my advice on how best to diffuse the online back-and-forth polarization, and encourage community within their own congregation despite knowing that many in the pews have varying opinions concerning the compatibility of same sex relationships with their own faith tradition.

These churches desire not to draw battle lines and fight for a particular dogma, but rather desire to love God and others in the example of jesus found in the gospel narratives. They acknowledge that members of their congregation venting their fears and frustrations on social media, using bible verses as ammunition is not only unhelpful, but actually harmful to the cause of reconciliation.

One church put it this way ::

Church Name is a very diverse church. When it comes to the decision of the Supreme Court this week to overturn the ban on same-sex marriages, we know that some of our people will be celebrating a victory for civil rights and others will be mounting what they perceive as a loss of morality in our society.

 

We as Church Name leadership, now more than ever, ask followers of Jesus on both sides of the discussion to remember that the highest call for our lives is to love as Christ has led us. Rather than participating in hateful and dehumanizing speech or tossing single verses from Scripture at each other to prove our position, Jesus has called us to love on another and to treat each other with the love and grace that Christ demonstrated to those that disagreed with, fought against, and eventually killed him.

 

This is the way we intend to move forward after this decision, just as it is the way we have strived to live as disciples of Jesus prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

What about you?

How did your church respond?

Did your pastor(s) address the SCOTUS decision this weekend? were you satisfied? Dissatisfied? Why?

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) surprised the nation when it refused to further wade into the contentious waters of the debate over same-sex marriage.

SCOTUS left intact decisions by a number of federal appeal courts that struck down bans on gay marriage. Having been asked to review those decisions and overrule them, SCOTUS stepped back and chose not to establish a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry.

Even still,  the ruling from SCOTUS points to the inevitable reality that in the not-too-long run, same-sex marriage will likely be legalized in every state.

And that isn’t just my opinion.

According to the New York Times, the SCOTUS decision Monday could signal the inevitability of the right of same-sex marriage nationwide. Most immediately, the decision to let the appeals court rulings stand increases the number of states allowing same-sex marriage to 24, along with the District of Columbia (it was previously 19). 

In just a few weeks, that number could expand to 30.

The legal landscape shifted dramatically in June of last year, when the court decided in Windsor v. United States that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional. By overturning this federal statute, the court opened the floodgates for other challenges to state laws barring gay marriage (and otherwise treating the LGBT community differently, such as issues of workplace discrimination).

The refusal to make a definitive ruling by SCOTUS on Monday signals that as more and more states’ rulings banning same-sex marriage are challenged, federal courts at all levels are applying that same reasoning with greater consistency.

It is possible, of course, that the court could choose to re-enter the conversation once another circuit court comes with a ruling that supports a state’s right to ban same-sex marriage. Or, perhaps more likely, SCOTUS could revisit the issue later. But as the number of legal same-sex marriages continues to climb and the practice becomes increasingly common across the majority of states, the likelihood of a future SCOTUS decision rescinding it becomes less and less likely.

For all intents and purposes, the SCOTUS decision Monday points toward the legalization of same-sex marriage as the new norm across the nation.

How did evangelicals respond to the news?

While recent months have seen the creation of a number of evangelical organizations with an affirming position on same-sex marriage and relationships (e.g.,  The Reformation Project and Evangelicals for Marriage Equality), not everyone within the Christian camp shares their perspective.

Focus on the Family warned that the decision will result in a ‘further expansion of threats to religious freedom in a blog post titled, ‘SCOTUS and Gay Marriage: No Court Can Change the Truth.’

More extremely conservative organizations had a litany of responses with spokespersons accusing the court of ‘a miscarriage of justice’ and ‘a total dereliction of duty.’ One organization in my home state of Illinois called for ‘civil disobedience on a massive scale.’

In a slightly more reasoned round-up of responses from conservative evangelicals, one prominent voice claimed the Christian Church in America must ‘respond with a siege mentality. We wring our hands or shake our fists at the cultural moment in a way that also detracts from the gospel of Jesus Christ…we ought to have the confidence of people who have heard a word from God.’

A siege mentality? Really?

Whatever happened to the words of Jesus, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’?

Like it or not, the legal definition of marriage doesn’t belong solely to religious communities. It belongs to the government.

And the reality is that the legal definition of marriage is quickly moving from the limitation ‘between one man and one woman’ to include committed monogamous couples of the same gender.

So, how would Jesus call us to respond?

Regardless of one’s political, social or religious convictions on the topic of same-sex marriage, Christians are called to live into the unconditional love of Christ.

Gay couples will increasingly be legally married and become more visibly our neighbors. Their families will be integrated into our society’s comprehension of cultural normalcy – in our communities, our schools and yes… even our churches. 

As I look at the Gospels and study the life, teachings and example of Jesus, I am convinced he would love and accept them.

God dignifies all of humanity, and asks us to do the same – even (perhaps especially?) those who are different than us. Tracing the overarching narrative of Scripture, one can see in the midst of the evolving Jewish understanding of the character of God a progression or evolution in the elevation of the Other:

‘You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.’

 

‘You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt. You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child. If you do mistreat them, and they cry out to me, I will surely hear their cry.’

 

‘Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.’

These hints of social justice for the alien and outcast were elevated, heightened and intensified in both the major and the minor prophets (Amos, for example, forges an explicit and unbreakable link between the call for justice toward those outside the community and the righteousness of God). The celebration of the fact we are each hand-crafted works from divine fingertips, regardless of our religion (or lack thereof), ethnicity, citizenship, gender, race, sexuality, or socio-economic status is woven throughout the story of Scripture. This radical inclusion is best seen in the person of Jesus who saved his statements of exclusion only for those who would make it difficult for others to find their way to YHWH.

As I read through the Red-Letters of the Bible, I don’t see Jesus creating barriers or building walls to keep any individual ‘out’ by alienating them or denouncing the existence of a group of people – regardless of their theological beliefs or political alignment on hot-topic issues.

The countless stipulations and demands for conformity in the Old Testament Law were fulfilled in the very same person who crossed cultural, religious and even political boundaries by including any and all into his new way of living, standing in solidarity with Others as the way of reconciliation:

• The Samaritan woman– scorned by the Jewish status quo for worshipping the ‘wrong way’ on the ‘wrong mountain.’

• The Syrophoenician woman– who didn’t worship YHWH at all, but instead likely had false idols to which she subscribed deity.

• The Centurion’s ‘servant’– another Gentile oppressor of God’s people, likely engaging in amoral behavior.

• The blind and lame beggars– sent to the margins of society because their disabilities were seen as acts of divine retribution for sinful behavior – either their own or that of their parents.

• The lepers– each of whom carried not only a socially unacceptable stigma, but also the very real and present danger of an incurable and fatal disease.

• The man with a withered hand– lingering in the Synagogue and hoping for a miracle on the Sabbath, he was seen as unclean to those in religious authority.

• The unbelieving paralytic– lowered from a rooftop into the compassionate presence of Jesus by his faithful friends.

• The disciples– dropouts and outcasts, this ragtag band of curiously single Jewish men was composed of a diversity of cultural, socio-economical and political categories – including one whom he knew would betray him.

• The woman caught in the act of adultery– clearly caught in a black-and-white sin, Jesus turns the Law on its head to protect her from the condemnation of the religious elite.

I simply don’t see Jesus keeping out or attempting to pass resolutions and calling for a ‘siege mentality’ against those considered by the religious elite to be ‘unworthy’. Instead, I see him opening up spaces for them to belong,  even when the Law said otherwise. Jesus had a habit of radical hospitality and inclusion which went directly against the religious status quo. 

Christ’s counter-cultural way of engaging the Other was,  in his own words, the path toward eternal life.

As we follow God in the way of Jesus, we continually find ourselves forced out of the comfort zone of ‘us’ and into community with ‘them.’ The so-called Other becomes a part of one-another.

This does not mean we all will agree on what Scripture teaches on homosexuality – just as Jesus likely disagreed with a great many beliefs of those listed above (including his own disciples).

The mistaken assumption within contemporary culture is that we all must agree in order to love one another well. But the reality is, disagreement does not dictate disrespect or dissent. Differences in cultural, political or theological belief systems do not necessitate aggressive lobbying or campaigning against another person or group of people. It is possible to disagree while dignifying and legitimizing other individual’s experiences.

As we follow the example of Jesus, it is our responsibility to be tilted toward reconciliation, treating others the way we ourselves would like to be treated. It is our responsibility to stand in solidarity with the Other. It is our responsibility to be at peace with all people, regardless of agreement or disagreement.

Alignment to our particular preferred theological and philosophical perspective does not serve as a prerequisite for our command to love our neighbors (more pointedly, Jesus commands his followers to love even their enemies).

Christ’s counter-cultural commitment to the Other stands in stark contrast to the way his self-proclaimed followers in 21st Century Western Evangelicalism have become primarily known for the exclusion of the Other.

At what point did we begin to move backwards and away from the ‘come as you are culture’ which Jesus created and move toward excluding Others with whom we disagree? More importantly, which communities will lead by example to show us what the Way of Jesus looks like today?

Last year, I wrote a blog post about my experience participating in The Marin Foundation’s I’m Sorry Campaign as we stood in front of these protestors during Chicago’s Gay Pride Parade.

<sidenote :: if you’re unfamiliar with the history of Gay Pride, I highly suggest watching this documentary which outlines the beginning of the LGBT equality movement at the Stonewall Inn in NYC – you can find other helpful documentaries on LGBT history and theology here>

I titled the post LOVE is louder

In spite of the 20 foot tall signs and bullhorns used by the protestors spewing words of hate, our simple signs of love with slogans like I’m Sorry for how the church has treated you’ or ‘God loves you’ spoke volumes.

This year, we brought more people, with bigger signs – and the result was nothing short of extraordinary.

CNN picked up our story and published the photo above here – which is an honor; yet what stirred my soul even more than our small little band of radical bridge builders having the publicity platform of one of the nation’s largest news organizations were the reactions I witnessed time and time again from our LGBT brothers and sisters marching in the parade.

Related: I Went to Gay Pride

To be fair, there were numerous folks who (quite understandably) flipped the protestors behind us the bird, cursed, screamed, or shook their heads and even laughed in the face of their blatant discrimination and hatred.

But far more of the folks marching took a different approach – one that reflects the life, teachings and example of Jesus – whether or not they actually claim to follow him.

but I say to you, love your enemies,  
and pray for those who persecute you

Time and time again I watched as those who were being told they weren’t loved by God, that they were going to hell – and worse – responded with these words ::

‘even though you hate us,  we love you!’

‘we love you anyway!’

‘God loves you even if you don’t know him (or her)!’

I’m not making this stuff up.

In the midst of being shouted at through bullhorns and being called reprobates, abominations, disgusting and ‘not even human’ (a verbatim quote), these beautiful individuals stunned me with a love for all of humanity that I’m not certain even I possess – and I’ve devoted my life to preaching a message of LOVE.

On the back of our I’m Sorry t-shirts is the slogan ‘Love Is My Orientation’ – and yet as we were setting up our signs in front of the protestors early in the morning before the parade began, under the weight of accusations and the maniacal mocking of the street preachers I found myself muttering under my breath, ‘maybe these are the types of people christ went nuts on.’

If I could’ve made a whip of reeds and thrown some tables without being arrested, I would have.

These are the broods of vipers, the sons of the devil and liars who put burdens too hard to bear on the people – all things Jesus said about the legalistic religious elite of his own day.

Christ had harsh words for these play-actors who claimed to know God.

These protestors (and others like them) are the modern day Pharisees, those who claim to know the Law but struggle with the most important commandment – to love their neighbor.

So I found myself actually hating them, even creating violent fantasizes in my head to shut them up.

But LOVE is louder.

As I watched and listened to the reactions of my LGBT friends marching down the parade route, I found my own faith challenged to become more loving, more Christ-like – even toward those who are full of hate and animus.

Regardless of their orientation or faith tradition (or lack thereof), a great many of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans* people who marched past provided a glimpse of the kingdom of God here, on earth.

Also by Michael: Response to the SCOTUS

With every tear-filled hug and ‘thank you for being here today’ I received, I responded with a genuine, ‘thank you for being here’ – because I found myself growing in my own faith, continuing on my own personal journey to actually act like the Jesus I so often claim to follow.

May we each find Christ in unexpected places and learn the same.

—

To learn more about our I’m Sorry Campaign and other resources and opportunities to participate in building bridges with The Marin Foundation,  click here.

To support The Marin Foundation and our work,  click here.

Yesterday, I stumbled across an Op-Ed piece on CNN’s blog.

Unsurprisingly, it was written about the recent controversial execution by lethal injection Tuesday in Oklahoma – a ‘botched execution’ that went so wrong the same news agency wrote previously that ‘it will also prompt many Americans across the country to rethink the wisdom, and the morality, of capital punishment.’

As it well should.

Enter Al Mohler’s Op-Ed piece yesterday.

Much to my dismay, the title of the article written by the widely respected President of the flagship school for the largest Protestant denomination in our country (The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) with 16.2 million members was this ::

‘Why Christians should support the death penalty’

How have we gotten the message of Jesus so damned wrong?

One way I believe we might’ve taken a wrong turn or two in following the Way of Jesus is by not heeding his own teachings and example. In the article, Mohler quotes passages from the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 9) and even dabbles a bit into the writings of Paul (Romans 13). But he curiously ignores the red letters of the gospels which could shed a little light on what a Christian (i.e., a follower of Jesus Christ) should or should not support.

Related: My Trip to Death Row

Regarding retribution, Jesus teaches ::

‘You’ve heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you…’ 

Additionally, we do actually have an example of Jesus being confronted by the religious leaders of his day – the teachers and scribes of the Law – in the middle of his sermon in the synagogue.

In the oh-so-well known and yet curiously ignored passage of the 8th chapter of John, Jesus is faced with what the Law says that the woman caught in the act of adultery needs to be stoned and is guilty of death and yet he elevates the conversation to the point of saving her life.

In fact, as you look carefully at the text it becomes clear that Jesus not only risked his reputation to save this woman of ill-repute, but also risked his very life in standing (or in this case,  stooping) in solidarity with her while saying the phrase,

‘you who is without sin, cast the first stone.’

In his very proximity to the woman who had been caught red-handed (so there was no room for doubt of her guilt) he put himself at risk to be killed as he stepped in to spare her life.

That’s what Jesus would do. We know this, because it’s what he did.

As others have written here at RLC,  we live in a society where both literally and figuratively (read :: spiritually) everyone is a law-breaker. Yet the continued misguided and misappropriated punishment of the death penalty continues and the debate rages on, as folks attempt to determine whether or not it is appropriate to take the life of another.

As Mohler claims in his article,

‘Christian thinking about the death penalty must begin with the fact that the Bible envisions a society in which capital punishment for murder is sometimes necessary, but should be exceedingly rare…’

and later,

‘In a world of violence, the death penalty is understood as a necessary firewall against the spread of further deadly violence.’

Finally, and in his concluding sentence, Mohler writes,

‘God affirmed the death penalty for murder as he made his affirmation of human dignity clear to Noah. Our job is to make it clear to our neighbors.’

Actually, on this one, Mohler is terribly misguided.

How can I make such a strong statement? Because both Al and I consider ourselves Christ-followers, and Jesus makes our job in regard to our neighbors clear – we are to love them. This is, in fact, what Christ claims is the way to salvation and an abundant life.

Also by Michael: Gag Me

We can do all sorts of theological and mental gymnastics in an attempt to reconcile the journey of the people of God as recorded in the Scriptures with our rules and regulations as 21st century Americans in regard to the death penalty.

But to claim a Christian response without acknowledging the teachings of the One we claim to follow seems to me to be an adventure in missing the point.

Just one year ago today, white smoke rose from the chimney overlooking Vatican Square, signaling the end of the two day papal conclave – and the election of a new pope.

Pope Francis.

In recent years and leading up to the resignation of the papacy by Francis’ predecessor Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican has been plagued with scandal and allegations – of everything from sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests and its cover-up by their bishops to discrepancies and accusations of smuggling and money laundering millions of dollars through the Vatican bank.

Upon his election, many of the faithful were hoping the former Cardinal of Argentina would bring some level of respectability, austerity and honor back to the Holy See. Yet there were vocal skeptics who feared the ‘out with the old and in with the new’ transition in Vatican City would merely bring more of the same.

For example, GLAAD President Herndon Graddick responded to last year’s election of Pope Francis by stating:

For decades the Catholic hierarchy has been in need of desperate reform. In his life, Jesus condemned gays zero times. In Pope Benedict’s short time in the papacy, he made a priority of condemning gay people routinely. This, in spite of the fact that the Catholic hierarchy had been in collusion to cover up the widespread abuse of children within its care. We hope this Pope will trade in his red shoes for a pair of sandals and spend a lot less time condemning and a lot more time foot-washing.

One year later, it appears Francis has done just that.

On the night of his election, the newly appointed Pope Francis rode the bus back to his hotel with the cardinals, rather than being driven in the papal car (he later rejected the notion of a Popemobile, instead opting to drive around the town in his own car which was donated to him by a Catholic priest from northern Italy). From the outset of his papacy, Francis has chosen to use the global spotlight provided by his holy office to focus predominately on the Church’s mandate to serve the poor and reach out to the marginalized. He has quite literally washed the feet of juvenile prisoners and Muslim women during holy week, skipped out on lavish concertos presented in his honor and instead invited the homeless to dine at the Vatican.

While previous popes were reported to sneak out in the evenings to enjoy the beauty of Rome or visit art exhibits unannounced, speculations were confirmed late last year that Pope Franics has been venturing out the Vatican at night, disguised as a priest to meet with and minister to the homeless in Rome.

Francis has added a personal touch to the papal office by reaching out via personal phone calls in response to letters from both the faithful and unfaithful alike, earning him the nickname of the ‘cold call pope.’

This image of him kissing the face of a man with a rare illness which caused bulbous tumors all over his body quickly circulated around the world – and it seems bit by bit the reputation of the Church is being healed by the actions of one man.

Francis has begun financial reform within the Vatican as well. Earlier this year, Francis removed four of the five appointed cardinals from an oversight body just 11 months into their five year terms as financial commissioners – a direct break with the clerical financial establishment Francis inherited from Benedict XVI. As recently as last month, Francis further revolutionized the Vatican’s scandal-plagued finances, inviting outside experts to scrutinize a previously hidden financial maze seen as both murky and secretive. The Church’s primary concern, Francis said, would be a ‘particular concern for the most needy.’

Not quite more of the same, is it?

Regardless of our religious affiliation – whether Catholic or Protestant – no one can deny the incredible influence and warm welcome this Pope has received, from even some of the most unlikely sources.

One example is The Human Rights Campaign – the largest LGBT advocacy group in the United States. After an interview in which Francis declined an opportunity to cast condemnation on LGBT people but instead responded with questioning the reporter, ‘If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?’, the HRC posted on their website, ‘Thank you, Pope Francis – LGBT people everywhere.’ And while more media attention surrounded the appointing of Francis as TIME Magazine’s ‘Person of the Year, ’ perhaps even more impressive was the awarding of the new pope with that same honor by The Advocate – one of the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans* publications available.

Definitely not ‘more of the same.

Francis seems compelled by the example of Jesus found within the Gospels and in the very nature of the Incarnation, encouraging priests to leave their comfort zones and spend time amongst people at the margins of society. In his admonition, he continued, “This is really important to me: the need to become acquainted with reality by experience, to spend time walking on the periphery in order really to become acquainted with the reality and life-experiences of people – if this does not happen then we run the risk of being abstract ideologists or fundamentalists, which is not healthy.”

Also by Michael: Gag Me…A Response to the Gospel Coalition

There can be no denying the incredible impact Pope Francis has made in just a very short time, helping to heal the Church’s damaged reputation within contemporary culture. As his papacy crosses the one year mark and enters into year number two, I wonder how many other leaders within our faith will follow suit… and what type of an impact that will have.

What do you think?

Photo Credit: Martin Podzorny / Shutterstock.com

Tonight, the Opening Ceremony for the 2014 Olympics in Sochi, Russia will air here in America – but the action has already started. Due to an increase in Olympic events this winter, the competition and television coverage got off to an early start yesterday – which meant my television was set to NBC for the majority of the evening.

My wife loves the Olympics – perhaps even more than Bob Costas himself. So, like many Americans and others from countries around the world, our television will be glued to the action and we’ll be cheering for our favorite Olympic competitors in a way that is eerily reminiscent of The Hunger Games.

As the host country struggles to put its best foot forward with the recent reporting on hotel conditions for journalists and athletes alike, there is an even more important issue looming over these Olympic games.

Russia’s anti-gay legislation, which I’ve spoken of in the past (at the dismay of some of my Christian colleagues) is at the forefront of international attention.

Companies like Google put up a subtle protest with making the homepage of their search engine the rainbow colors, and included this quote from the Olympic Charter:

‘The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of practicing sport, without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.’

As promised, NBC’s anchor Bob Costas addressed the ongoing discrimination of LGBT people in Russia in their broadcast last evening, giving particular attention to the conversation on the front end of their reporting for the evening. Costas made headlines last month by claiming he was more interested in interviewing Russian President Vladimir Putin about Russia’s controversial laws than in offering his own commentary.

Related: Why ‘Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin’ Doesn’t Work – by Tony Campolo

I expect we’ll see more of that in the coming days of these Olympic Games.

While it’s true that we celebrate and are entertained by these athletes and the had work they have put into their Olympic dreams as they represent their respective countries, I believe addressing the human rights violations in Russia against LGBT people ought to take center stage of these games.

Not everyone agrees with me.

Already I’ve seen a number of folks complain via social media of a ‘left-wing, liberal media conspiracy’ promoting the mysterious ‘gay agenda.’

So here’s my not-so-subtle response to that…

I like the Olympics too. I don’t even mind watching hours upon hours of figure skating competitions. As I mentioned above, I’ll be watching these games while cheering with my wife and loving every minute of it.

And I’m sure Russia is a wonderful place, full of wonderful people. I bet there are even some good eggs within their legislature. I’ve got no issue with Mother Russia. The Cold War is over, and has been for years.

But LGBT people are systematically being mistreated,  beaten, tortured – and worse – with government complicity, protection and approval.

The anti-gay propaganda law makes it a crime to show any kind of public support of homosexuality – and vigilante groups take advantage of the laws to act with near impunity.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon rightfully condemned these attacks and laws against LGBT people saying, ‘We must raise our voices against attacks…We must oppose the arrests, imprisonments and discriminatory restrictions [LGBTI people] face.’

Russia is not the only country contemplating and legislating the criminalization of homosexuality – the same is taking place in Uganda,  Zambia,  Nigeria,  Cameroon and elsewhere.

It seems to me self-proclaimed Christians should be pro-actively speaking out against such atrocities – regardless of their theological perspectives on matters of faith and sexuality.

It seems to me any person who has studied and claims to follow the life, teachings and example of Jesus must choose to stand in solidarity with those who are (quite literally) being oppressed.

I can appreciate the opinions of those who hold traditional and conservative positions regarding sexuality and the beliefs that underpin them. Yet these beliefs do not provide support for the beatings and abuses being endured by people who are gay in these countries.

Also by Michael: Quack, Quack.

It is completely contrary to the example of Christ to single out a group of people for unfavorable treatment, no matter who they may be. Our Christian faith recognizes that all human beings have been created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ teaches that we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. All acts of bigotry and hatred, mistreatment and abuse – of anyone – betray these foundational truths.

The bills passed and proposed in Russia and elsewhere in the world forcefully push lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people even further into the margins, and criminalize anyone (including clergy) who speak up and provide support for their LGBT brothers and sisters rather than reporting them to law enforcement. Persecution of this kind has no place in any community guided by the commandment to love one’s neighbor.

Regardless of the diverse theological views of our religious traditions regarding the morality of homosexuality, the criminalization of homosexuality – along with the violence and discrimination against LGBT people that inevitably follows – is simply incompatible with the teachings of our faith, whether from a conservative or progressive perspective. To suggest otherwise is at best tragically ill-informed and perhaps more likely, desperately misguided.

 What do you think?

What a dynasty.

You’ve probably heard by now that the fully-bearded Duck Commander Phil Robertson had some choice things to say about his personal views regarding faith and sexuality – and as a result, he earned a suspension from the producers of his own TV show Duck Dynasty, A&E.

In a GQ profile entitled,  What the Duck? the squirrel-eating and duck hunting patriarch of duck mating calls made the following remarks:

‘It seems like, to me, a vagina – as a man – would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.’

he continued,

‘Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men…don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.’

Wow. Just… wow.

He made even more offensive remarks regarding racial segregation, implying blacks had it better and were happy under Jim Crow. It surprises me not at all that A&E would suspend (or fire!) someone for making such inflammatory and offensive remarks. In addition to his blatantly oblivious comments about race, Robertson did not merely state that he held to a conservative or traditional view of sexual ethics; instead he perpetuated an outdated stereotype of the LGBT community by articulating destructive and dehumanizing misinformation in an unhelpfully crude manner.

Related: Duck Dynasty, First Amendment Rights, and Christian Values – by Kristen Howerton

Any business with an ounce of business sense would distance themselves from such a statement… regardless of whether or not it came from a self-professing Christian (one example – it was just less than a month ago that Alec Baldwin had his show suspended [and terminated two weeks later] by MSNBC for making a gay slur during a confrontation with a photographer. I’m pretty sure he wasn’t planning on praying at the end of his show).

Yet already the blogosphere and social media sites are abuzz with folks making predictions and audacious claims about an all-attack on christians and free speech in good ole’ ‘Muricah. The petitions for A&E to bring phil back to Duck Dynasty have already begun, and I’m certain this will be a big conversation at many a Christmas dinner. Free speech versus tolerance versus business versus religion versus…

It’s like we’re doing Chick-Fil-A all over again.

But listen. It’s really not all that complicated. Phil Robertson – and Pat Robertson (no relation that i know of) and Mike Huckabee and self-proclaimed theologians and the quacks at Westboro Baptist and the KKK -andeverybody else in this country can say whatever the heck they want short of yelling FIRE! in a crowded room. They can believe what they want and worship where they want and pray how they want and they can heckle at funerals of soldiers and hold wretched signs at gay pride parades.

That’s their right.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences for their words and actions. That doesn’t mean that when they earn a suspension or lose their platform or have their show cancelled or lose fans or even have to shut down their bakery for refusing to serve other human beings who are protected by law that there’s some sort of religious persecution going on in our country,  anymore than it means there is a so-called war on Christmas when someone says ‘Happy Holidays’ or ‘Season’s Greetings.’

Also by Michael: This Pope is a Sinner

Words matter. How we use them matters. How we behave matters – maybe even more than what beliefs we subscribe to. For example, Pope Francis was voted not only as TIME magazines ‘Person of the Year’, but was also chosen as the ‘Person of the Year’ for the oldest LGBT publication in the states,  Advocate magazine – because of the ‘significant and unprecedented shift’ that took place in how he has affected the perspective of one of the world’s largest faith communities toward gays and lesbians. Perhaps the biggest moment of building bridges between the gay community and the Catholic Church came during a September interview in which Pope Francis recalled,

‘A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person.’ he continued, ‘If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?’

As pope, Francis has not yet said that the Roman Catholic Church supports civil unions between same-sex couples. He has not yet changed the theology of the Church. But what he has done is set an example for how conservative christians – Catholic and Protestant alike – can talk about issues of faith and sexuality without sounding like absolute quacks.

We should pay attention, and follow suit.