One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

Philip Ratner, "Remember the Sabbath"

Originally published in The Window (November 10, 2006)

Holy Liberation (or) Sabb-, part IV
by Richard M. Wright

(The Sabb- is going somewhere…)

Are we slaves?

(Say whaaa-?)

That is an offensive question but bear with me. One of the speakers at the (can you guess?) Catalyst Conference was Gary Haugen, who works with the International Justice Mission which basically finds and rescues people from slavery. No kidding.

Even in countries where it is illegal some people sometimes engage in slavery. Haugen described a brick-making complex somewhere in Asia where people – including husbands and wives and children of all ages – were forced to make bricks 12-14 hours each and day and 7 days a week. Beatings for failure to keep quota. No escape. And no rest from work.

That – among other things perhaps – is a key characteristic of slavery. Working without ever resting.

Rewind a few millennia. The Hebrews are former slaves about to enter the land of Canaan. God through Moses reminds them of ten things. The fourth – which is the longest commandment so maybe it is rather important – says:

“Observe the Sabb-day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabb- to the Lord your God. On it, you shall not do any work, neither you, you’re your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the foreigner within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God broutht you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord you God has commanded you to observe the Sabb- day.” Deuteronomy 5:12-15

Fascinating. Why should you observe this day of rest/fun/worship/prayer? Because once you were slaves but now you are no longer. Sabb- in part represents the opposite of slavery. Perhaps freedom. Liberation. (More about that next week.)

(So, if we choose not to practice Sabb- are we choosing to live like slaves?)

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” (Galations 5:1)

What is leadership? It is not simply getting people to do what you want. Tyrants and dictators get people to do what they want. But they are not leaders.

Woodruff argues persuasively that reverence is a virtue especially important for leaders. Once again we need a quick reminder on what we mean by reverence.

Reverence is the capacity to feel respect in the right way toward the right people, and to feel awe towards an object that transcends particular human interests. (175)

It is to recognize that one is human – finite limited and flawed. To recognize that one is not a god – and to speak and act accordingly. It is what restrains (the exercise of) raw power.

Woodruff offers several points which characterize reverent leadership:

• Good leaders sometimes take their followers where they are unwilling to go (164)
• Good leaders give respect to and in turn receive it from their followers (165)
• Good leaders and followers are joined by ceremony – I would use the term ritual but the meaning is the same – in a common reverence that reminds them that they hold certain ideals in awe together (165)
• Reverence enables good leaders to exercise good judgment – which includes making decisions without knowing for sure how those decisions will turn out (166)
• Good leaders do not master people by force – this isolates them from the people they are trying to lead and leads to mistakes (166-167)
• Isolation of leaders from followers – not involving them in discussion or decision making – is a first step away from good or reverent leadership (168)
• Good leaders do not overpower their followers with force or words or the threat of discipline (173)
• Good leaders do not use or appeal to justice (alone) in order to secure obedience (174-175)
• A good leader will not insist on everything due him under justice (175)
• Good or reverent leadership does not produce or speak in terms of winners and losers (176)
• Good leaders do not deceive their followers (176)
• Good leaders are open to persuasion (176)
• Good leaders listen to their followers – even if they know more than their followers (177)
• Reverent leadership encourages mutual respect – which comes before forming opinions about the other person (179-182) (this one is tricky and difficult to understand)
• Reverent leaders do not overlook devotion to common ideals no matter how low immature or foolish they think their followers (183)
• Reverent leaders are open to new considerations that might alter the course of their reasoning (184)

I am about to tread on very dangerous ground. I do not wish to imply in any way that Woodruff would agree with how I am about to apply his book including his exceptional chapter on reverent leadership. But in light of the above points – how much do our current national political leaders exhibit reverent leadership?

I will let gentle readers decide how to answer that.

And can those who do not exhibit reverence demand it – including respect which flows from reverence – from their opponents? What nonsense.

I think Woodruff is correct. Reverence is an essential if largely forgotten virtue. And I would argue reverence is in the process of being almost completely erased from the American social cultural and political landscape. No wonder it feels like we are approaching a peaceful(?) civil war. Civil war is the surest sign reverence has been lost.

The new “V” series totally rocks.

In a recent episode Father Jack, Erica, and Hobbes have a prisoner – a human ex-soldier who works for the “V” and recently shot and killed a human supporter of the Fifth Column. They have a dilemma. They desperately need the information he has in order to save lives there are in immediate danger. He will not divulge the information. Should they torture him or not?

That was the moment I saw them in a new way. Each represents a different facet of the human psyche – or perhaps a different approach to being human. We have Father Jack who represents purity/nobility/sacrifice/morality. We have Hobbes who represents force/violence/ruthlessness. And we have Erica who represents the pragmatic synthesis – how often does she decide what the group does? Perhaps the super-ego the id and the ego. I still do not know how Morris the V fits into all this.

Father Jack believes torture is wrong. “Do not torture – even if there is a ticking bomb and torture is the only way to stop people from getting killed”. On this occasion he backs off and walks away. Hobbes will do whatever it takes no matter the morality or consequences. Last night he said it well. “You can call yourselves freedom fighters or rebels. Face it people – we are now terrorists”. Erica sometimes goes with Jack sometimes with Hobbes. Sometimes tries to find a balance between the two. Use violent force – but restrained and guided by morality.

I am not sure how Morris fits into all this.

Let me share what I recently posted on facebook:

I think Father Jack is one of the coolest characters I have seen in years (although he sure was a dunce last night). Not some stupid cookie cutter idiot… See More minister like we often see in entertainment. The guy rocks.

Consider the core group: Erica, Jack, Hobbes, and Morris the V (whose name is seldom spoken – odd). Each (except for Hobbes) is a well written well rounded character. They stand on their own. But I hypothesize that each represents a different facet or approach. Similar to the 4 hobbits in Lord of the Rings (Frodo is compassionate/suffering, Sam is bold/judgmental, Merry is valiant, Pippin is youthful/foolish). Or Kirk, Spock, and McCoy in Star Trek (logic, emotion/passion, synthesis?). Perhaps Jack is idealism/compassion, Hobbes is ruthless/violence and Erica somehow represents the pragmatic/balanced synthesis – and in that schema who the heck is Morris?

In a way each episode shows how the different “faces” of humanity – or different approaches to dealing with the V crisis – interact and ultimately play out. Sometimes Jack’s pure nobility wins the day (“always do the right thing”) – but last night it sure bleeped things up. Sometimes we judge Hobbes as too ruthless and unrestrained – but sometimes boy is he right. And Erica? Still don’t know how Morris fits in.

Recently my mind has been on the issue of morality ethics versus(?) virtue ethics. During March and April I led a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. What I shared was drawn heavily from the work of William Brown with whom I had the privilege of studying that biblical book in seminary. Biblical scholars universally agree that Ecclesiastes is an example of what we call wisdom literature. So far so good. But what is the theological center of wisdom literature? Proverbs seems so different from Job different from Ecclesiastes different from wisdom Psalms. What could possibly be a common thread in all of them? Brown suggests wisdom literature is about character – the shaping and reshaping of character.

And a critical component of character is virtue.

This is important because of the distinction between virtue and morality.

Virtue involves what kind of a person you are – not just whether you obey a set of rules. Now some Christians would object. The Bible include moral teachings – rules if you will – that we must follow. But those same good Christians would remember the insights of Paul. Good rules do not by themselves make good people. And the fruit of the Spirit is this – followed by a list of virtues or character traits rather than rules.

A system of morality that focuses exclusively on rules and principles can account for motivations and intentions to act on them only on an ad hoc basis. Conversely, one cannot conceive of character traits except as including dispositions to act in certain ways according to moral principles… Yet the cultivation of virtue is of primary necessity when it comes to situations that demand choosing between conflicting principles of duty or revising working rules of right and wrong. It is precisely this necessity that suggests the primacy of “virtue ethics” in moral discourse: Rules can never be exhaustively specified so as to preclude the need to judgment that extends beyond the rules themselves. Even when moral rules are adequate guides to conduct, they merely constitute the form of morality, not its point. (William Brown, Character in Crisis, 13)

Do note that Brown does not argue against the value of moral rules (get reference/citation).

During the Bible study series I shared that Ecclesiastes challenges and deconstructs traditional wisdom. Good behavior does not always produce good results – such as material prosperity. But Ecclesiastes does not leave us with nothing. It offers a new(?) set of virtues. The two I most strongly emphasized are joy and reverence. I told the class that if they remember nothing else please remember that Ecclesiastes preaches joy and reverence – and this is good news for the modern and even post-modern world. I will return to this in a forthcoming post.

Reverence.

One of the most important books I have read during the past decade is Reverence by Paul Woodruff who teaches at University of Texas – Austin. When I was on the planning committee for the Greater Baton Rouge Federation of Churches and Synagogues annual prayer breakfast we brought Woodruff to give the main address several years ago – and it was arguably the best prayer breakfast I attended since I have been here. Which is ironic because it was the least religious/theological presentation to the prayer breakfast. Which is one of the key points of his book Reverence.

Reverence is a virtue. Simple enough. Rather than a moral rule. A moral rule might say “never make fun of the government”. Woodruff argues that sometimes reverence requires us to make fun of the government – when our national leaders are acting like tyrants that is when they are not governing with reverence. A moral rule might say “never ever kill another human being”. Woodruff does not argue that reverence sometimes requires us to fight and kill but he does argue that it is entirely possible nay essential that soldiers who fight and kill be reverent. “It is reverence that moderates war in all times and cultures, irreverence that urges it on to brutality” (Reverence, 14).

Now what does all this have to do with “V” (2009)? Great question.

I do not know.

But I wonder if the dynamics in “V” (2009) – the interplay between Jack, Erica, and Hobbes, perhaps along with Morris – are related to this distinction between morality and virtue. How do they decide exactly what to do in each situation? Torture the prisoner or not? Kill another human being or not? Shoot down a shuttle or not? Warn another human being of a possible attack or not? Simple morality does not answer those questions – or rather it does answer them but in ways that leave our heroes unable to act in defense of humanity. But virtue might guide them in these situations. What kind of people are they? What virtues do they exhibit? And how do those virtues guide them to make the good decisions in these different and complex situations? Perhaps more precisely how do virtues guide them to act well upon the decisions they make?

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been to Binghamton many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait the rector’s wife was associate pastor so guess maybe they do. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in positions of religious leadership and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

Well well well.

Two years ago – read that again – I attended a youth rally in Baton Rouge sponsored by our local Baptist association. During that youth rally someone came on stage and promoted a Christian rally/youth event which would be held during a school day. He offered an argument for (1) why the event could and should be held during a school day and (2) why public schools have to allow this.

I wrote a post which critiqued the youth rally – and during that post critiqued the rally/youth event that was being promoted. I thought it entirely inappropriate (a) to schedule such an event during a school day and (b) to insist public schools must allow this because “we can call it a religious holiday and the government cannot say what is or is not a religious holiday”. I did not critique the person who heads up the ministry that organizes the event nor did I critique the event itself.

Let me share with you the exchange – with names/details removed.

Dear Rick,

I assume your a great guy that is not into bashing denominations,or against soulwinner’s . However after reviewing a blog about “how not to plan a <removed> rally” i was very concerned about the misinformation that was put out. I also believe that you probably did not know the info is not factual that was put out…I am the founder of <removed> of which is mulicultural and interacts with multiple denominations to host an event in different cities . The event itself is determined by a committee formed in that city.
Every event all citywide ministries are invited to join together for a common cause. Please understand we have never hosted an evening event anywhere. Along with other non – facts this blog is not becoming of a christian whoever wrote it.
I am asking that it be removed . It is unlawful to post inaccurate info.. please respond with your decision.

Sincerely ,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xx
Xxxx xxx Xxxxx Xxx.
xxx-xxx-xxxx

My reply:

With respect – I suggest you read it again and more carefully. Focus particularly on the second sentence.

What misinformation? Everything in it is eyewitness account. I was not describing a <removed> rally. I was describing the youth rally (Citywide Youth Rally) sponsored by local Baptist association – at which someone appeared and promoted the <removed> rally which would be later in the year.

At no point does it claim <removed> is an evening event. Therefore it does not contain misinformation and is not inaccurate and so I do not see the need to remove it. Do feel free to leave a comment if you wish.

What came back was:

I would suggest as a brother in Christ.The title is using our trade marked name and as a brother in Christ you would recognize the title tries to imply our organizational tie. It is clear its slanted by some denominationalism. One thing you might of overlooked was many attended the through the field trip aspect of which was not accurately
Reported. Call me if you want more info. We are however requesting the removal

Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

My final reply was:

This has been an unfortunate exchange and I am struggling to understand what your objections are. I think I have explained myself quite clearly and that the post does not lend itself to the sort of deliberate or accidental misunderstandings you suggest.

I could be wrong but my best effort to understand what motivates this is:

a) “<removed>” is indeed in the title of the post (even though the post is mostly about something else at which <removed> was mentioned and described and promoted)
b) which means people searching for information might come across this 2 year old post
c) which does indeed offer a critique of the “excused absence” argument

So here is what I am going to do. I am going to remove the post simple because I do not care to deal with this any further. I have work to do and a congregation to serve and do not need the stress even though I am entirely unpersuaded that your objections are valid. I will not call you. And I request that you do not attempt to call or contact me in any way whatsoever.

One wonders how someone could (legally) express disagreement with some aspect of <removed> (namely the “excused school absence” argument) without being accused of some sort of “inaccurate information” upon which one bases a request for removal.

I have rather strong opinions about this exchange. It is possible that I am not entirely or even mostly in right – that maybe this person has a point somewhere somehow.

What do you think?

(I chose this older image because this is how I remember him.)

That for three(?) years my office was across the hall from that of Prof Henry Gates Jr does not give me any special insight into the sudden controversy over racial profiling.

Let me cut to the chase – before more general thoughts – about what I think (not what I know) about the situation with Prof Gates being arrested then released with charges dropped.

• This was not racial profiling. Period.
• Prof Gates overreacted in how he treated the sergeant who came to his home.
• The arresting sergeant who came to his home overreacted to Prof Gates.
• Both overreactions are to a large extent understandable – which is the more important issue than what did or did not happen that evening in Cambridge Massachusetts.

Let us start with the first point. The facts are not in dispute and a copy of the police report (with more private information blacked out) has been obtained and posted on the internet. Early reports in the press were based on highly incomplete information and/or solely upon the initial account given by Prof Gates – thereby giving a highly false impression of what happened. Someone sees two “black men” shoving their way into the house. Is that a break-in. Calls the police to investigate. Police arrive. There is someone in the house. Of course they are going to talk to that person and both confirm that person is the owner of the home and try to find out what happened such that someone thought they saw a break-in in progress. (“Ma’am what you thought was a break-in was your neighbor trying to open a stuck door”.) That is their job. It has absolutely nothing to do with “race”. Both Prof Gates and the police report confirm that when he arrived home he had trouble opening his front door which was stuck – and he and his friend(?) used their shoulders to shove it open.

(I have had police on two occasions come to my home because of a reported crime and ask me for identification. “Yes I live here… Well fortunately I have my wallet and driver’s license on me”. I have also “broken into” my own home on many occasions when I locked myself out.)

Therefore for Prof Gates to respond as he did was unwarranted. He should have been realized the officer was just trying to make sure the person he was talking to was the resident/owner and not some burglar. He did not know the police officer. He could not read his thoughts – one trusts – and discern his intent. Not to mention that standing right behind him were two other officers one African-American and one Hispanic. It was wrong and unjust for him to accuse the officer of being “racist”.

(I did not know Prof Gates at Cornell University but I certainly knew of him. And I saw him several times each week passing by stopping at his door and/or coming out of his office. I recall smiling and exchanging polite greetings such as “good morning how are you?” “fine thanks” and so on. He never struck me as an arrogant hothead. But then not many people know what a vile temper I have when one of my buttons gets pushed.)

Now about that disorderly conduct thing. Police officers deal with uncooperative citizens all the time – whether they are suspects/criminals or innocent bystanders/victims. They are trained to deal with verbal abuse. It is unclear (to this outsiders who was not there and I will come back to this) that arrest was necessary.

Now if they both overreacted – their overreactions were understandable. Prof Gates was tired from a long – very long – trip. Exhausted human beings even of such intellectual and academic stature do not think or reason very well. I have been exhausted and responded badly to situations that normally I would just sit there and take it or respond better. It also turns out that racial tensions were running rather high in Cambridge because of crimes/situations involving African-Americans during the past few months. And it is not inappropriate to throw in the history of American society – an African-American of that age not only might have strong negative memories but is a high profile scholar who might be drawing upon collective memory. I would suggest he was not responding to the sergeant and this situation – he was responding to the real ghosts of real white racist cops of the past.

Now what about the police sergeant? This is a man with an exemplary record who teaches fellow officers how to avoid racial profiling. And he of all people is accused of being a “racist white cop” – and in the course of just doing his job. Sometimes when someone accuses me of something and I do/am just the opposite – I can become particularly indignant. Yes this is about wounded pride but that is a reality right or wrong. Given my background I would be exceptionally offended by someone who accused me of racism just because I happen to express an opinion about politics-society-culture that does not fit “liberal orthodoxy”. Think how you would respond if you are the hardest working person in your office and hardly ever take vacation time – and some stranger from company headquarters says you are being let go because you are lazy and are not doing your job. (That is a real example from a friend.) Yes one hopes we would just say “no you are quite incorrect” and calmly explain their misperception. But that is not what always happens.

This is largely speculation because – once again – I was not there and do not know all the facts. Which is why it was dreadfully inappropriate for President Obama to inject himself into that situation. I also dare opine that the “invite you both for a beer at the White House” thing is insensitive (do these two men after what they both have gone through really want to knock back some brewskis for the a shameless photo op? come on now) and lacking in class.

Some of the responses to this situation have been unfortunate. That certain groups and individuals who epitomize “racial identity politics” quickly turned this into a “racial profiling… what a horrible nasty racist nation America still is” incident does not speak well of them. What did they know? And what facts we know indicate strongly that they were just plain dead wrong. And let us be fair – some of the negative attacks on Professor Gates have also been underinformed and unwarranted.

But there have been voices of relative sanity. Kudos to one writer at Big Hollywood who invited people to understand how and why racial tensions had been so high in Cambridge. And – to pick two examples – Jonah Goldberg and Cal Thomas (white conservative columnists) who spoke on behalf of Prof Gates as a person even at the same time they explained why this was not racial profiling.

Yesterday on NPR – yeah yeah I know – Neal Conan interviewed an African-American social commentator who was truly a breath of fresh air. (No pun intended. Cut it out.) In a nutshell he said he had never been called the N-word and has not experienced overt racial discrimination. In other words American society has come a long way and we need to recognize that. And he balanced that with the observation that many African-Americans remember the past when it really was bad – they sometimes interpret present situations in terms of their past experience and they sometimes pass on their memories/experience to the present generation (that otherwise would not think American is so awful and nasty and racist).

There is still racism. And there still is (unjustified) racial profiling. Unfortunately my evidence for this is – among other things – an email sent by one resident in this neighborhood to everyone on the Neighborhood Watch list concerning a recent break-in. And now some might be tempted to look with suspicion on any of the fine African-American young men who just happen to live here with every perfect right to do so.

Oh yeah – not to mention African men. One of my congregants is renting a house on the next street. One of the finest Christian men I know. He is from Kenya. His skin is darker than mine. Will he be stopped or arrested just because he is out for an evening walk?

People overreact. People can be wrong. But their overreactions can be understandable. And their emotions – whether or not based on the facts of the current situation – are still real. One of the most basic principles in Pastoral Care is “the apparent problem is seldom the real problem”.

Readers of this website know that one of my “buttons” – things that make me quite angry and that is not to excuse an un-Christian reaction – is when people insult my intelligence.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor and the confirmation hearing are an insult to my – to all of our – intelligence. Just how stupid and gullible do the president and Senate Democrats think we are?

There are two major problems even if you agree with the judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor and support her being on the Supreme Court. And I would like to think there are principled liberals and Democrats who would be troubled by these.

First is the issue of fairness and consistency.

Republicans are supposed to roll over and wag their tails because Sonya Sotomator is a Latina. If they question her too strongly or vote against her confirmation they supposedly risk offending and alienating a huge chunk of the American  electorate. Given the conversation I had with a gentleman on the plane from Los Angeles to Houston I think there is some truth to this. He was deeply angry and offended by conservative opposition to and criticism of Sotomayor basically because his wife is Mexican. Is that logical or rational or reasonable? Frankly no. But that is not the issue. The issue is perception and reaction.

But let us recall how Senate Democrats have treated non-Anglo nominees in the past yes? Robert Bork – oh wait he was male and white and deserved what he got. Clarence Thomas? And dare we recall Miguel Estrada? And according to Democratic staff memos later unearthed Estrada was not even allowed a hearing because (a) he was Latino and (b) then President Bush was possibly grooming him for the Supreme Court. Senator Leahy of Vermont has lied about this claiming that Republicans opposed Estrada.

What is it about liberals and some Democrats – this obsession with rewriting history?

I am not a big fan of Ann Coulter. She can be harsh abrasive and hyperbolic. But she is right on target with her latest piece which addresses the unfairness and inconsistency of Senate Democrats when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.

So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his “hope” is that “if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment,” I think it’s a lovely speech.

It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.

But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war — while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example. (emphasis added)

Read the whole thing at Townhall. You do not have to register.

I will come back to that point in bold.

So that is the fairness and consistency issue. Senate Democrats will engage in vicious ruthless cynical possibly racist tactics in order to block Republican nominees and/or conservative judges. And get away with it. And then lie about it later. And expect us to believe all this.

Second – the confirmation hearings themselves and the apparent disconnect between what Judge Sotomayor is saying now and what she has said/done/written during her previous career.

There is much to say about Judge Sotomayor’s record – in terms of speeches in terms of articles and in terms of decisions. But Jim Geraughty brings it all home in his latest article:

But if you were a Republican senator, and wanted to vote in good faith to confirm Sotomayor, you would have to believe:

· That her “wise Latina” argument was just a bad “rhetorical flourish” that accidently left listeners believing she disagreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when she actually agreed with her.

· That the misperception of the “wise Latina” argument remained uncorrected through six separate uses of it.

· That Sotomayor genuinely has “no idea” why George Pavia, a senior partner in the law firm that hired her as a corporate litigator, would say, “I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights.”

· That she did not read the legal briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on that organization’s board.

· That she genuinely does not have an opinion on whether citizens have a right to self-defense, and could not think of “a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question,” despite the fact that the Heller case decided last year declared, “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

· That she “actually agrees” with Justices Scalia and Thomas that judges have to be “very cautious” about using foreign law, despite a speech earlier this year in which she said, “Suggest[ing] to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding.”

· That she really believes that “we don’t make policy choices in the court,” even though she said in a 2005 appearance at Duke University that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

· That she genuinely believes that “the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind,” when she said in a 1999 speech that there is “no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . . Aspiration to impartiality is just that, an aspiration.”

· That she thinks the man who nominated her has a fundamentally flawed perspective on the role of judges, and that she will not “approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. You do not have to register.

Precisely. In a nutshell the confirmation hearings have revolved around the theme of “everything I have said in the past – I meant the opposite”.

Let us assume for the sake of argument and at the strain of credulity that she is telling the truth. That she is not just pretending to be a rabbit for the sake of satisfying the Senate and the public – when for years she has walked and talked and quacked like a duck.

What we then are being asked to believe is that for years Judge Sotomayor has been incapable of making herself understood.

Does that not trouble even liberals and Democrats? Surely the ability to communicate clearly and be understood is important for a judge or a Supreme Court justice. Will her decisions be misunderstood as badly as all of her previous speeches writings and decisions? What “rhetorical flourishes” might there be in a dissenting or supporting opinion on the Supreme Court that would radically disrupt lives and businesses and organizations – and all because she did not mean what she said in fact she meant the opposite of what she said?

This is an insult to my intelligence. And God have mercy on me because that makes me quite angry.

Look. You want a Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? Fine. You even want a liberal Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do not like that but hey guess who won the last election. One expects that.

But surely we can do better than this. Why not the liberal Hispanic judge who harshly denounced how Sotomayor handled (or not) the Ricci case? Why not just be honest and consistent?

“Yes Senator. I think some people of some races and backgrounds are wiser and make better decisions than others. I do not believe impartiality is possible – or even a goal to which a judge can and should aspire. I think judges and justices make policy. I think racial discrimination against individuals in order to correct past wrongs against other groups is a fine way to go.

Yes Senator. I swim. I fly. I quack. I am a duck”.

Oh where to start?

There is plenty with which to find fault in what Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori had to say to the National Press Club on December 16. Baby Blue characterizes it as:

… an amazingly sophomoric speech (which she lectures the press to be nicer and stop writing about schism and sex).

But what deserves particular emphasis amidst the usual drivel is a good old fashioned outright lie.

Concerning the Episcopal Church’s various lawsuits against dioceses, parishes, and even individual parishioners the Presiding Bishop asks us to believe:

We tried for a very long time to negotiate and came to a place where there was no willingness to negotiate so at that point you ask the courts to enforce the laws of the land.

If you ever are tempted to wonder if these are basically good honest people who are sincere in their “error” do keep such statements like this in mind. The Presiding Bishop is lying.

The Diocese of Virginia was all set to work out a settlement with parishes leaving the Episcopal Church – and then 815 (which is shorthand for the leadership of the national church including especially the Presiding Bishop and her chancellor David Booth-Beers) stepped in and told Bishop Lee to change course and sue the dickens out of these people.

I am not sure I believe in animal “rights”. But I do believe human beings have a divinely given responsibility to care for animals. This is a theological conviction rooted in exegesis of Genesis 1-2. God created human beings to represent God within creation and to “manage” (my loose translation of yirduu < Hebrew rada[h] – got this from a Chinese visiting scholar in forestry) the world with God and for God. So “rule over the animals” does not mean “dominate them and do whatever you want with them” because that is not the Hebrew/biblical concept of rule. To “rule” has in mind the ancient ideal of the shepherd-king (rather than king-as-tyrant) who cares for those in his charge.

Human beings – who image God within creation – are supposed to take care of animals.

And so I have little sympathy for Michael Sandlin who for eight years has kept a tiger in a steel-and-concrete cage at his truck stop in order to attract people to his business. Iberville Parish is trying to enforce a rule against displaying wild animals. Sandlin is suing for an exception because – and at least he comes out and admits this:

“A large portion of the business at Tiger Truck Stop comes from customers stopping to view the tiger exhibit,” his lawsuit seeking an injunction stated.

“Mr. Sandlin will suffer irreparable harm if he is required to relocate his tiger,” the suit stated. “If he is forced to relocate the tiger or if the tiger is seized then he will most likely be prevented from bringing it back to the State of Louisiana.”

Read the whole thing at the Baton Rouge Advocate. You do not have to register.

Okay – I sympathize a little bit. It would hurt him financially (along with the people he employs which includes family members). Not that other businesses somehow manage without something like a tiger-on-display-in-a-cage. And it could be worse. The tiger can stand up and move around. He is cared for – more or less.

How would Sandlin like to be stuck in a cage like this for eight years? “But you get plenty of water and food. You are well fed. These animals rights wackos should not move you from the only home you have known for eight years”. It could be worse – but that is a far cry from being good or right or appropriate for a wild animal. Louisiana State University grew a brain and a heart and built the new habitat for Mike the Tiger. (Which is not to endorse the whole tiger-on-display thing.) Animals need more than water and food when they are stuck in a bare boring steel and concrete cage. They need stimulation. Things to do. Otherwise we suggest that prison is no big deal – right?

The animal rights activist should not have allegedly called Sandlin’s sister an “inbred” (which nearly led to fisticuffs outside the courtroom). But other than that…

What kind of people are these? Who would use a tiger like this?

No wonder some people think Louisiana is backwards.