All kinds of wholesome families

Three weeks ago Honey Maid graham crackers released a commercial celebrating all kinds of wholesome families, including gay families. They got some criticism, so they put together an awesome two minute response. I recommend clicking to full screen before starting either video.



Brendan Eich has been working at Mozilla (makers of the Firefox web browser) for a good long time, rising through the ranks. Back in 2008 he contributed $1,000 to the campaign to halt gay marriages in Calif. Recently he was named as CEO of Mozilla. While Eich confirmed that Mozilla believes in diversity (a central piece of the Mozilla mission) he didn't say his views on marriage have changed. The pushback from both within and outside Mozilla was fierce. Eich finally resigned.

Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin wonders about the statue of limitations on such a donation. He thinks our criticism of Eich is being as bullying as the Fundies are to us.

This did not sit well with his readers. They bring up many worthwhile points. The only one I'll mention is this: Would Burroway be saying the same thing if Eich had donated to the Klan?



Remember that "license to discriminate" bill that was vetoed in Arizona? It passed the Mississippi legislature in lopsided votes and that governor signed it.

Timothy Kincaid of Box Turtle Bulletin isn't so worried. He says there aren't that many businesses willing to get a reputation for refusing service to gays. He then says there will be many unintended side-effects that will turn around and bite lawmakers, such as Rastafarians demanding the legalization of pot and other religious minorities declaring their freedom.

Kincaid's readers strongly disagree. In spite of any side-effects the bill, just by existing, will have the intended effect of belittling and demoralizing gay people.



Gene Robinson takes on the Fundie claim that it is the Fundies who are the victims.

But I have to ask: are religious conservatives confusing the pain of finding oneself “suddenly” in the minority with actually being a victim? Both feel uncomfortable, even painful, and are fraught with anxiety. But they’re very different.

He then describes what being a victim is really like.



Several gay organizations were a part of the protests that ousted the previous Prime Minister of Ukraine. They were right there in the square where the protests were held -- but without their banners and flags. It is a rather homophobic country after all.

But now that a new guy is installed and treading carefully between Russia and the European Union, the gays of Ukraine are in a bind.

If they push too hard for rights they hand Russian Prez. Putin an easy propaganda victory. He can say, "See! The West really is all about homosexuals!"

But not pushing hard enough is also a problem. Officials from the EU are quietly lessening their demands that Ukraine must pass certain human (gay) rights laws in order to be an auxiliary member. Gay groups think that now is the time to get these laws passed because they won't be passed without EU pressure. Weren't those protests about human rights?



This one is ugly. The Inter-Religious Council of Uganda put together a well-attended five-hour celebration as a thank you to the legislators and prez. Museveni for enacting the recent anti-homosexual bill.

So go watch that Honey Maid response again.

Frivolous? Try callous

The Washington Post delved into state level polls of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). They found that the state with the least support for federal workplace protections for gays and transgenders was Mississippi (no surprise there). But even in Mississippi, support for ENDA was at 63%. The highest support was 81% in Massachusetts. Overall, America approves ENDA by over 70%. That means this bill is not controversial.

Terrence Heath recounts the history of ENDA. It was first submitted to Congress over 20 years ago and has been reintroduced eight times. Heath goes on to tell his personal involvement with ENDA, including protests at Cracker Barrel Restaurants who had fired all their non-straight employees. Work on the bill gave him a chance to meet Sen. Ted Kennedy.

I discussed ENDA with my friend and debate partner earlier this week. I was lacking a few facts at that time. The Washington Post has a guide to explain what ENDA is. It only affects employment -- workers can't be fired for being a sexual minority.

Which left me and my friend wondering about other protections. There is a law named after Matthew Shepard that includes sexual minorities in hate crimes. But, as my work in Royal Oak last weekend showed, there are no federal laws to prevent discrimination of us in public accommodation.

On Thursday the US Senate passed ENDA. All 54 Dems voted for it. And so did 10 GOP. Though given 60% approval for the law in Mississippi one wonders (but only a little bit) why more GOP didn't vote for it.

Alas, there is a big problem with this version of ENDA. There are broad religious exemptions. Church exemptions we expect. But exemptions for religiously affiliated hospitals and universities for jobs with no religious function (billing clerks) only legitimizes the discrimination we are trying to end.

Law professor Ari Ezra Waldman discusses these exemptions in detail. Part of the problem is the gay rights groups pushing ENDA agreed to them without even a hint of protest. The lack of protest now will make our next demand for rights (public accommodation) harder. These exemptions show that religious rights trump gay rights. When a borderline case comes before a judge he will look at that acquiescence along the way to affirming religious rights at our expense.

Then the Senate took one more step. The approved an amendment that says federal funding cannot be reduced if a religiously affiliated organization discriminates against us. Yup, my federal taxes will still go to discriminators. Which gives one pause over wanting to get this version passed.

But I won't wish too hard. Get it passed, then get it fixed. Speaker John Boehner is opposed to ENDA because he feels it would result in too many "frivolous" lawsuits. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, promptly responded through Twitter:

Speaker Boehner opposes ENDA for fear of frivolous lawsuits? He led a frivolous lawsuit defending DOMA that cost taxpayers over $2 million!

A bit later Reid added:

Not only is Speaker Boehner’s claim untrue, it is also callous. It fails to take into account the heartbreak and suffering — not to mention lost wages and productivity — that workplace discrimination causes

Terrence Heath documents several people who lost jobs because they were gay or colleagues thought the were gay. One of Heath's jobs was to collect such stories. He also reports that 42% of gay and lesbian workers have experienced discrimination and 90% of transgender workers have. Hardly "frivolous."

Part of the problem in passing ENDA is shown when Rachel Maddow visits Jimmy Fallon. He, like many ordinary citizens, assumes such protections are already in place. And Boehner is capitalizing on that misguided thought. He says ENDA isn't needed because gays are already protected. Yeah, they are -- in only 21 states.

In another essay Heath looks at what comes after the Senate passed ENDA while the House is opposed. First, Obama could be more supportive. He doesn't need political cover. He can sign an executive order banning discrimination by gov't contractors (which affects nearly a quarter of the civilian workforce). And he can do that at the same time he urges the House to sign the bill. He can even use it to shame Boehner: I've been a leader in protecting all the workers I can. Now you need to be a leader to protect the rest.

Heath shows us what has changed in a decade. Back in 2004 Bush and the GOP effectively used gay marriage as a wedge issue against the Dems (when Michigan and several other states voted in marriage protection amendments). Now the wedge is pointing in the other direction being used to split the GOP.

So we and Obama need to keep the pressure on Boehner and the GOP. ENDA may not pass the House in this Congress. But that pressure will improve the chances of it passing in the next.

Retired gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson slams other denominations, especially the Catholic bishops, for working against ENDA.

For instance, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is vigorously opposing ENDA, asserting that their right to discriminate based on sexual orientation and gender identity is essential to Catholics' religious liberty. Now stop, and just take that in for a moment. A Church, dedicated to following the man known for his outreach and compassion for the marginalized, petitioning the government to be exempted from the fair treatment of marginalized and vulnerable LGBT people. It takes my breath away.

I'll let a cartoon depicting Pope Francis have the last word:

Looking equality in the eye

Nevada took a big step towards marriage equality this week. It has started the process to repeal the gay marriage ban in its constitution and replace it with marriage equality, the first state to do so. This is a big deal in a heavily Mormon state. It has passed the Senate (12-9) and heads to the House. Both chambers must approve it again after the 2014 election before going before voters in 2016.

Mormon marriage equality supporter Sen. Justin Jones (D-Southwest Las Vegas) cited his gay brother-in-law, who he sees in church every Sunday. “I would rather lose an election than look my brother-in-law in the eye every Sunday and tell him he doesn’t have the same rights as I do,” he said.

And to round out the marriage equality news, Delaware has also started the process, though it doesn't have to undo a constitutional ban. The bill was introduced less than two weeks ago and has already moved through committee and been approved by the full House. On to the Senate.



Bishop Gene Robinson has written a book God Believes in Love; Straight Talk About Gay Marriage. That was enough for him to be a guest of Stephen Colbert. The two ponder the question if a denomination doesn't exclude someone how can it be cool? Enjoy the 6 minutes of fun.

Strained peas

When I get busy interesting articles accumulate in browser tabs. Here is an effort to clean out the backlog.

Bishop Gene Robinson visited Jon Stewart to discuss his new book God Believes in Love. Robinson says lots of people -- including Fundie youth -- recognize our love and are looking for a way forward. He wrote the book as a Biblical support of gay marriage.

And Stewart takes a look at the Supremes accepting the two gay marriage cases. Along the way he touches on the vile stuff that Scalia said recently.



Speaking of Scalia and his nasty statement…

A New York Times editorial said:

[Princeton student Duncan] Hosie [who had asked Scalia the question] wondered why Scalia couldn't make his points without offensive implications about gays and the lives they live. But what if those slurs were the point? That's a depressing possibility to contemplate as Scalia and his colleagues prepare to rule on cases involving same-sex marriage.

But progressive court watchers aren't perturbed by Scalia's antics. His vote isn't in play anyway. The ones to watch are Kennedy and Roberts. Lawyers on both sides of the case will be tailoring their arguments towards these two men.



If you have time, here is a series of 35 cartoons on gay marriage. My favorite is #7. The ones at the end of the list appear to be from when New York approved gay marriage more than a year ago.



Scientists have a new hypothesis on why some people are gay. It has something to do with "epi-marks" that influence how genes do their work. These thingies are not supposed to be inherited, but in the case of gay people they are. I'll let you go read the original if you want to know more. Though Timothy Kincaid is going to stick to his hypothesis of Gerber Strained Peas. Go ahead, prove him wrong.

In heaven together

A great afternoon and evening. The GSA (Gender and Sexuality Alliance) of University of Michigan, Dearborn sponsored Bishop Gene Robinson to come and talk. He was then the guest at a reception in honor of Ruth Ellis Center (thanks to the GSA for doing that!). I went as a REC volunteer and the staff made sure there were other volunteers at the Center to cover for me as today is my usual day to be there.

During the talk I was a bit surprised by a policeman who hung around. Later, when he left with Robinson, I realized the policeman was probably part of Robinson's bodyguard.

I didn't take notes of what Robinson said, so you're stuck with what I can remember. Some highlights:

During the Q&A session a Fundie challenged Robinson for perverting the Gospel. I'm sure he has had lots of practice being kind to his opponents and did so again. He thanked her and politely explained why he disagreed. The very next question was from someone with "proof" that St. Paul was gay. To this Robinson said we must be careful about reading into the Bible what isn't actually there. Jonathan and David may make a great gay couple but the Bible doesn't say they actually had sex. A couple questions later was about how he handles his opponents. He said he keeps in mind "We're going to be in Heaven together." The opponent may be surprised Robinson is there, too. Even so, he is responsible for his actions now. Robinson understands now why Jesus was silent before his accusers at his trial. When people are hurling insults at you it is very easy to respond in kind. It is much better to be silent with the understanding the hate stops with me.

The reception had some very good food (and some of the Ruth Ellis kids took advantage of it). Towards the end of the eating time one of the UM-D servers came to Laura, the Executive Director of the Center. The server said that many times at the end of functions there is lots of food left over. The university can't use it again and the servers can't take it home. They've come up with a system that the servers take turns getting the leftovers to a favorite charity. This server wondered if Laura and REC would be her charity. Laura, of course, jumped at the chance and worked out how the server would contact the program director (sitting across the table) when food became available. I may be serving UM-D leftovers when I'm in the kitchen.

I talked to Robinson afterward and asked him what drives the Fundies. He said that over the last year or so he has concluded that there are two widely different views of humanity.

One is from the liberal church and focuses on the creation story in which God declares everything to be good. Christianity is liberating, calling us to bring out the best in ourselves and each other.

The other view, from the conservative church, focuses on the Fall of Man, when Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden. Humans are so thoroughly corrupted that the church must clamp a tight lid on all deviant behavior. Allow even a tiny bit loose and the whole cesspool comes bursting out. Humans would be nothing better than wild animals, destroying all of civilization, without the firm control of the church. Robinson added that those people do not look happy. I agree it does explain a lot about the Fundie mindset.

Because the reception was in honor of the Ruth Ellis Center there were many of our brochures on the tables. Even though they aren't new, I hadn't seen one before. I was surprised a picture of me is on the front! It was the same one that appeared in Between the Lines 15 months ago of me and Laura and the Center's president of the board accepting a check from Metro Health Foundation.

Mistranslation and misinterpretation

In case you haven't explored why many Christians believe the Bible does not condemn gay people (or you need a refresher) Bishop Gene Robinson wrote an excellent series of articles for -- of all places -- The Washington Post. Though that is a surprise I'm pleased to see these arguments in such a prominent secular venue. I've seen all of these points before.

In "Texts of Terror" he discusses how one should read the Bible. One major hurdle is making a distinction between what the words mean now and what they meant in context of the society in which they were written. He also explores the importance of Tradition and Reason, which (with Scripture) make up 3 parts of the Quadrilateral that John Wesley described. The fourth is Experience. Robinson also declares he does not believe God stopped talking to people once the books of the Bible were chosen and made official.

The two condemning passages from Leviticus chapters 18 and 20, the ones that refer to male-male sex as an abomination, are in the section describing purity. They assume that everyone must be straight, so gay sex is a person acting against nature and is thus unclean (in the same manner a woman's period is "unnatural" because it happens only for a short time each month. The surrounding passages also uphold common cultural stigmas and current understandings of how the world works. They might have been important in ancient Israel, but the whole lot of them are not binding on us today.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) is frequently taken as a prohibition to gay sex. However, the story is about coerced sex, or rape. Elsewhere in the Bible, including by Jesus, the story is declared to be about not offering proper hospitality.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality. One would think an issue causing denominations to split would be worth a mention.

In Romans 1:26-27, Paul appears to be using the same argument as Leviticus -- that since the ancient world didn't know the concept of homosexuality all people were assumed to be straight. Worshipping idols (instead of God) would cause people to do things which are not natural, so straight people would engage in same-sex acts. Other than that, there are several sexual acts, such as temple prostitutes, that Paul is upset about, but he never actually says. Just a few verses later at the start of chapter 2 Paul issues a strong condemnation against judging others. This is the part conservatives ignore.

Passages in the letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy that are used as texts of terror use a Greek word that is used nowhere else in Scripture nor in other texts of the time. It's meaning is unknown. Modern translators have, of course, imposed their own biases onto the word.

These passages simply do not address the modern concept of two people of the same sex in a loving relationship. That means while we should not interpret the Bible to condemn gays we also cannot say it supports gays. The concept of homosexuality was unknown at the time. However, the Bible has a great deal to say about empathy, justice for the marginalized, honesty, and loving relationships. Those concepts should guide us when dealing with gays and gay relationships.


Another excellent discussion of these texts of terror can be read in the Soulforce guide "What the Bible says -- and doesn't say -- about homosexuality."

Refusing to hold justice as a hostage

Candidates for Bishop in the Episcopal Church diocese of Los Angeles area included two gays. And one of them, Mary Glasspool, was elected. After Gene Robinson was made bishop the Episcopal Church got enough condemnation from the worldwide Anglican Church that the Americans put a hold on more gay bishops. Then it became obvious the worldwide church was holding justice hostage, so the Episcopalians lifted their hold. This is the first gay bishop since the hold was lifted.

Your fears are unfounded. Be not afraid.

New Hampshire has already enacted civil unions, something that Bishop Gene Robinson and his partner celebrated last June. Now the state legislature is considering same-sex marriage. As part of the hearings Robinson went before the state Judiciary Committee and made his eloquent case for gay marriage. The whole testimony is worth a read (he says it well), though here are some of his points:

When civil unions were enacted we were told to fear the result -- gays would destroy marriage. The fears have shown to be unfounded.

Will this change the definition of marriage? Yes. But marriage hasn't had one constant definition through history.

This bill is not a threat to any religion. We confuse the issue when we ask clergy to act as agents of the state to officiate at weddings. But divorce doesn't happen at a church. No church will be required to conduct weddings of which it doesn't approve. In the same way that religion is not controlled by the state, the church should not control civil acts.

One frequent phrase of the bible is "Be not afraid." Don't let religious opponents of equality make you afraid to do what is right.

The true message of religion

A gay man named Waymon tells the story of growing up in a Southern Pentecostal church (they're even to the right of the Southern Baptists). From a very young age he was called a sissy and from the time he came out at 16 he was thrown out of the church and out of his family in the name of religion. Christians? Done with them. He has since reconciled with his family.

Until Waymon and his partner had dinner with Gene Robinson. The partner had put together a conference in which Robinson was a speaker so Waymon was included in the dinner ahead of time. And was surprised by the Christian he encountered.

I was immediately thrown off by his openness and kindness, something I wasn’t expecting from such a deeply religious person. My surprise only grew when I heard him speak.

He spoke with such authority and conviction about religion, God, and the Bible. He seemed to answer all of my questions and concerns about the way religion has been corrupted by extremists. He talked about the true message of religion: acceptance, love, and compassion. He talked about how civil rights, including LGBT equality, was something all religious people should be behind.

Even when he was attacked during the questions session by some crazy, right-wing pastor for “spreading lies about the Bible and Jesus” and “being a disgusting abomination”, he never got angry or reacted negatively back. He simply showed true strength and answered back intelligently and honestly, never stooping to the level of those that attacked him.

Waymon hasn't become a Christian, at least not yet, but he now knows that not all of them hate gays.

That happened more than a year ago and Waymon now poses some questions.

There is an effort now to take our struggle to the churches. Instead of holding the debate in the public square, many are now working to hold the debate in churches. When does this cross the already thin line between church and state? Shouldn't we be trying to separate freedom of religion from tyranny at the ballot box? Or is this the only way we can overcome our struggle, especially in black and Latino communities? Does this strengthen or work against the gay community? Gays have been burned so badly for so long there are many of us who now think of the bible as a book of lies.

That historical inauguration

GeoEye-1 and CNET had released photos of the inauguration from space to show the size of the crowds. The last one shows the Mall from the Washington Monument to the Capitol and can be enlarged.

I wasn't able to watch the whole inaugural parade, so I had to rely on this link to see the Lesbian and Gay Band Association pass in front of the presidential viewing stand.

John Stewart on the Inauguration and with an interview with Gene Robinson. Now that we have a black president, is a gay or lesbian president possible? Yes, says Robinson.

It is good to say and write President Obama. I never wrote it that way for Bush because he was never my president. I didn't want to dignify him with the term. In his first days in office President Obama has shown how different he is from his predecessor, all for the better. These include:

* Pay freeze for White House staff earning more than $100K.
* Ban on executive branch employees from accepting gifts from lobbyists.
* Instructions for his administration to operate under principles of openness, transparency, and engaging citizens in their government.
* Instructions that only a former president (and not anyone else) can assert executive privilege for keeping records private.
* Ordering the Attorney General and White House Legal Council to review all claims of executive privilege.

And all that was on day one.

Day two included:

* Ordering Gitmo to be closed in a year.
* Ordering the CIA to follow the US Army Field Manual on interrogation (no torture).
* Ordering the CIA to close overseas "black site" prisons.

Yeah, some claimed we got great intel out of torture. Others respond saying both are you sure? and great intel probably isn't worth the hit on our national reputation. Yes, it feels good to call him President Obama.


Bishop Gene Robinson gave an invocation before last Sunday's We Are One concert at the Lincoln Memorial. Alas, his prayer was not included in HBO's broadcast of the event with Robinson praying at 2:25 and the cameras rolling at 2:30. There was a lot of finger pointing afterward with the Obama Presidential Inauguration Committee finally accepting the blame. Of course, that made gays less pleased with the new president.

I think the prayer itself is quite good. It takes deep understanding to include such phrases as:

Bless us with tears – for a world in which over a billion people exist on less than a dollar a day, where young women from many lands are beaten and raped for wanting an education, and thousands die daily from malnutrition, malaria, and AIDS.

I also pray the last paragraph: Please, God, keep the new president safe.
The full text is on the New Hampshire Episcopal Church website.


In contrast, Warren's prayer got cool reviews.


I wanted to view the inauguration at the Affirmations Gay and Lesbian Center in Ferndale. It didn't quite work out that way. One reason was mine. Though various news sources said the ceremony is at noon they didn't clarify that the actual oath is supposed to be administered by then (it was a few minutes late) and quite a bit happens before then. Affirmations said their festivities started at 11:00 but I figured I could be there about 11:30 with no problem. The other reason was traffic. I encountered a backup at the I-96 to Southfield Fwy interchange and it took me a nearly 20 minutes to get through it. By then I decided to just go home (much closer than the center) and watch by myself. I had NPR on while sitting on the freeway, so heard the procession of dignitaries. I got my TV on just before the actual ceremony started at about 11:45.

No, you can't take it with you

St. James Episcopal Church recently lost a ruling in the Calif. Supreme Court. The rules for becoming a congregation of the Episcopal Church (or any denomination) mean that though an individual congregation paid the construction costs and mortgage for a church building it is held in trust for the denomination, who are the actual owners. St. James is in a snit over Bishop Gene Robinson and wants out of the denomination. The Supremes said, fine, you as a congregation can leave. The building cannot.

Rick Warren has stuck his nose into this situation and said you stood up to the forces of evil and lost your building? Come use ours. Which gives the impression Warren is aiding the schism of a denomination of which he is not a member. Is this good? Will United Methodists and Presbyterians be his next targets? We have enough trouble with such groups as the Institute of Religion and Democracy. But, as I've concluded before, perhaps a schism is a good thing. Why should a congregation be forced to compromise on its bigotry?l

The best stand to take

Here is a long, rambling, interesting essay on the issue of gays and the Anglican Church by an "indigenous" pastor (one local to a small church who hasn't attended seminary). Here are some ideas from it.

The Anglican Lambeth Conference, coming up this month, does not set policy, like the United Methodist General Conference last April. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the nominal head, is not a pope, able to issue decrees. However, they can pass resolutions and one resolution passed in 1998 was that homosexual practice was contrary to the teaching of Scripture. It was done through careful diplomacy leading up to that conference. Resolutions cannot be enforced.

So, when Gene Robinson was ordained 5 years later (in 2003) it was seen as those Americans going it alone against a world-wide understanding. Actually, Canada provided a little fuel for the fire is 2002 by adopting blessings for same-sex ceremonies. But Americans rubbed others noses in it when electing a woman as their head in 2006.

The rift comes down to three questions: (1) Is Jesus who he said he is, providing only one way to salvation? (2) Can the authority of scripture be trusted? (3) Are there moral absolutes or merely suggestions on how we are to act?

All that means the rift goes back to the "Elizabethan Settlement" of the 16th century after Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church. What is the source of authority -- Scripture or the pope? Anglicans settled on Scripture, tradition, and reason (later John Wesley would add experience). While the "Settlement" put an end to beheadings, nothing was settled. England went through its own civil wars, regicide, several religious movements and a population that ends to avoid churches.

What is now different is the global scale of the split. In 1960 there were only 50 million Christians (of all denominations) in Africa, now there are over 300 million. In that time most African countries became independent and are now eager to impose their clout on their former colonial masters.

Another way to look at it is marginalized people aligning and converging (a messy process) and the "straight, white, male, clerical, overly educated, financially secure, English-speaking, well-pensioned, professionally established" are being moved to the margins as the formerly marginalized move to the center. In this thinking, fundamentalism is a vestige of a binary view of us and them, orthodox and heretic.

But what good is that binary if Christianity is implicated in militarism, usury, sweatshop labor, and environmental rape? Why is the split over gays? As Gene Robinson puts it:

“I don’t believe there is any topic addressed more often and more deeply in Scripture than our treatment of the poor, the distribution of wealth, of resources, and the danger of wealth to our souls. One third of all the parables and one sixth of all the words Jesus is recorded to have uttered have to do with this topic, and yet we don’t hear the biblical literalists making arguments about that.”

One of the African Anglican bishops complains of Robinson's ordination by saying the Episcopal Church has violated that 1998 understanding but also the faith their own fathers taught in Africa as missionaries. "We stand where their ancestors stood." Put another way, the African bishop is saying that he gave up his gods, his family structure (polygamy was normal), and his language, even risking being accused of encouraging Western encroachment for the gift of the Christian faith. Now Americans are changing the faith he changed his life to receive.

Lots of people have said and say now that communication is the key. But the "Listening Process" the Anglicans have been trying to practice over homosexuality hasn't gotten very far. The communion bread can only communicate when we stop talking. Communication carries risks: It leaves little room for the ambivalent -- he isn't likely to post on blogs as the two sides bash each other. When we spend so much time "communicating" we are spending less time actually doing -- we are being asked to "take a stand" when the best stand to take is with an actual person in an actual place, such as standing with the gay man whose partner just died of AIDS.

Back to Robinson's issue of the church and the poor: The churches with the most need, such as in Appalachia, should get the priests with the greatest skills. Alas, priest allocation in the Episcopal Church is based on free-market principles. The priests with the greatest skills go to the churches with the greatest resources.

-----

British news media are reporting there has been a secret meeting between the conservative Anglican bishops, the ones boycotting the Lambeth Conference, and advisors of Pope Benedict. The issue is primarily the inroads gay clergy have made in America and Britain, though women bishops were also discussed. The disgruntled Anglicans are discussing greater unity with the Vatican. Whether that means healing the centuries old split between the conservative Anglican and Catholic churches at the expense of the world-wide Anglican Communion remains to be seen.

Bishop Gene Robinson and the future of the church

I've just finished the book Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson by Elizabeth Adams, published Sept. 1, 2006. Though, on occasion, it seems it goes into a bit too much detail it all serves to show how much of a non-event his rise to bishop was to New Hampshire and such a big event to the rest of the world. He had already served as bishop's assistant for over 15 years and his faith and manner of working was already well known throughout the state. Reading it has been a needed antidote to the Right's nonsense, even when the book itself documents how the Right is using Robinson to split the church. Here are some thoughts from the book.

Robinson was asked what it was like to be at the center of something that caused so much pain, confusion, and anger. He responded that Jesus did the same and that it was the churchy types, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were angry. But the same statements that angered them sounded like good news to those on the margins. Bishops on the Right are angry with Robinson, but his new position is wonderful news to the gays who feel pushed away by the church.

The bible is the primary guide to faith, over experience, tradition, and reason. It is the description of God's love affair with humans. It needs to be weighed against historical understanding and then discussed in a community because it is so easy to make the bible say what we want it to say. This discernment is necessary but not easy. The bible must be taken seriously, but not literally. Easy to say the bible is literally true or not true at all. But each verse must be seen in the context of the whole. You can't raise one verse in importance. Saying one verse is no longer important doesn't bring the whole thing crashing down.

If the bible needs that much discussion and interpretation how do you know how to live your life? Never mind that we are notoriously bad at actually following the bible's directions. In terms of a particular verse, you don't know how to live. The certainty comes in knowing that heaven is there for you. Like the prodigal son, before we have a chance to tell God, "I'm sorry," he'll have the ring on our finger and have ordered up a party. Salvation doesn't depend on getting each verse interpreted correctly. So we read the bible to understand what God is saying to us, and we as a community might disagree on that.

Since we are going to heaven we can take risks, we can think extravagantly about what the church should be. But the church rarely takes risks. It should be about so much more than survival. Churches want to emulate Christ but don't seem to want to get their hands dirty.

As for his opponents, Robinson says they don't seem happy. The Good News hasn't made them joyful. But he needs to satisfy God and his own heart and conscience, not his opponents. Is he a spiritual leader or deceived by the devil? Look at his work, the people he ministers to.

The Anglican Communion worldwide says that homosexuality will divide the church. This one thing is more important than creeds millennia old? Than a baptismal covenant? Than the Trinity? This one thing trumps all that and more? We can still commune together even while we wrestle with the issues. African bishops are increasingly saying that, no they can't commune while they disagree and the only acceptable way to resolve it is to do it their way.

Reasons why homosexuality is a hot-button issue: It (and women's ordination) mark the end of patriarchy. It is painful for straight white males to give up power. The worldwide church sees Americans as cheeky upstarts partly because of many other things America is doing (Iraq) and the general low regard for America. Society and culture have changed so much and so quickly (and in a secular direction) that there is a hunger by some people for something that doesn't change, that can't change, and a literalist interpretation of the bible is one thing that can remain absolute (at least in the eyes of today's literalists).

African bishops are the most vocal against gays. A good deal of that is the culture they are in. Africa hasn't had its Stonewall moment yet. The culture still considers homosexuality taboo. The Christian church is always looking over its shoulder at Islam, which also bans gays. They can't be seen as espousing Western values.

Up through about 1960 Episcopalians (and many other denominations) had no trouble living with a broad range of views, from conservative to progressive, within one church community. This was at a time, however, when Christianity was the dominant religion in America and was pretty much the big background presence in all public life. Two Supreme Court rulings changed that: banning prayer in public schools and Roe v. Wade. Having lost it's grip the Right could no longer be tolerant of any ideas but its own. Takeover is the goal and schism (or threat of it) is one way to increase their influence. The efforts have been slow, but relentless. I, of course, see it in the United Methodist Church where, next April at General Conference, for the first time membership standards will be debated (and the only reason to have standards at all is to exclude certain people).

How do we know if a change to doctrine is valid? Does it increase understanding of God? Liberate our spirit to be more in the image of Christ? Make us more compassionate, just, living, and free? If so, it is of God.

When faced with another issue of inclusion the church uses the same rhetoric and same delaying tactics. Robinson and New Hampshire stirred the hornets because they didn't delay. For every step forward someone does it and the church (and society) figures out it is okay. We can't wait for everyone to believe it is okay before doing it. The real issue isn't theology, but power. We form groups of people like ourselves and want them to remain that way with control in the hands of the insiders. And we'll do some nasty things to maintain that exclusion and control.

Robinson took part in a debate on the topic of gay clergy, talking about how God had worked in his life. As he spoke the audience hung on every word. The next debater talked about how rules need to be maintained and the proper way of doing things was to change the rules. The audience turned him off. Religion must dialogue with its own culture. The church is dying because it is in thrall with the past. For example, many people, including men, don't want to be a part of a church that degrades women. The church makes itself irrelevant.

Some people think religion is about rules and if it weren't for the rules the human spirit, a wild and snarling animal, could not control its passions and would pounce the moment you turned your eye. Civilization would crumble. This rulebook comes with promises attached -- follow the rules and you get the prize. It's a white-knuckle ride, always fearful that you'll mess it up just before the finish line. This rulebook has the added benefit of putting the brakes on change and defining who is "in" and who is "out." But it alienates the religion from society and science. It tends not to attract converts, in spite of the primary task being the Great Commission -- go and make converts.

Others think religion is about "Look at the gifts God gives us!" If we accept God's love we learn to love ourselves and those around us. It releases creative energy, it breaks the bonds of slavery, sets captives free, restores sight to the blind. It is about Hope. It deals with ambiguities and uncertainty, a guide to the current life as well as the next one. This religion supports the spirituality of people turned off by religion. It supports attempts to eliminate the barriers between people, racism, homophobia, environmental degradation, social injustice. The primary task is the Great Commandment -- love one another. I believe in this church.

The book is worth the read.

Since the book was published, the issue of homosexuality has indeed begun to divide the church. Many individual Episcopal churches have withdrawn from the American structure and have associated themselves with Anglican bishops in Africa or South America. And a week ago, the San Joaquin Diocese in central California, all of the churches in that region, voted to leave the Episcopal Church USA. A commentator theorizes this is the first visible sign of the Second Reformation that began with the Stonewall Riots, a small act similar to Martin Luther nailing his list to the church door. It will split denominations as completely as the Reformation split the Catholic Church. He notes that in all other issues -- slavery, divorce, diet, women's issues -- no church now relies strictly on the bible for its understanding. It has allowed the influence of culture. The only issue still under sola scriptura, in which the only source of truth is the bible, is homosexuality.