Interpretation and Dialogue?

After President Obama’s announcement that he supports the right of homosexuals to marry, people have weighed in on both sides with renewed fervor. Or does it just seem that way? The dialogue (if we dare call it that) has been going on for a long time; though, I’m not sure dialogue is the right word. It is more along the lines of sound bites and rehashed phrases with little substantive argument on either side, at least in the public square.

For instance, NPR has an article front and center today—2nd article, middle column. The article shows people on both sides of the issue using the Bible for their purposes. The article even has someone quoting the oft used line,

“‘When you read the Bible, you can find justification for almost anything,’ she says, ‘including slavery, the subjection of women and an argument that the sun actually revolves around the earth.’” The she is Susan Russell, an Episcopal priest in California. This is true of course; you can find justification for almost anything—if you take things out of context, which is what many Christians do who are on both sides of this issue—and lots of other issues as well.

For instance (rabbit trail alert!), someone this morning sent me a link for a man who was coming to the area to talk about prophecy. So, I went to his website to confirm the fact that I wasn’t going to hear him. He too was weighing in on the homosexual marriage issue (ok, so it’s not that big of a rabbit trail), but with a different slant: why Jesus was coming back soon. And he used the Bible to show why. But his use of the Bible was no different than Susan Russell’s. He, too, pulled things out of context. You can read the article here, but here is a summary of his logic.

1) God destroyed Sodom for their homosexuality. 2) The author says, “Jesus said as the days of Lot so will it [sic] be the time when I return to the earth.” 3) Therefore, since homosexuality is prevalent now as it was then, Jesus must be returning soon.

Ok, let’s break down this logic. 1) While homosexuality (actually, I think there is an argument for rampant sexual perversion, not just homosexuality) was evident in Sodom, that is not the reason for it’s destruction. The sexual perversion of the day was a part of a greater spiritual issue. In Ezekiel 16 we read that Sodom’s pride, material prosperity, and love of pleasure (including sexual perversion) was her downfall. The author has failed to consider the context of not only Genesis but the narrative of the Old Testament as a whole. 2 & 3) The author takes the “days of Lot” phrase out of its context in Luke 17. Jesus was not referring to their sin, but to their going on with life without a care in the world. They were simply going on with the daily activities of life without ever realizing that they were in peril. That is how it will be when Jesus returns, nothing unusual going on. This is sloppy logic and sloppy reading.

Now back to Russell’s quote. The slavery issue is beyond complex. I think she is wrong—with qualifications, but this post would get really, really long, and that misses the point. The other two: subjugation of women and the earth revolving around the sun (did she really say that?) are another issue. People have believed the Bible says this in part because, I think, Christians have acted that way. Therefore, we assume the Bible gave them permission to do so. Yet, the Bible does not, anywhere give Christians permission to subjugate women, nor does the Bible say the sun revolves around the earth, any more than I say it does when I remark, “What a beautiful sunrise!” To use the subjugation of women issue when bringing up homosexuality is not to give the Bible a clear reading. To use the sun/earth example is a subtle attempt, without any rational support, to paint people who are opposed to homosexual marriage as flat earthers, i.e, ignorant. The irony there is palpable.

What is interesting is the author of the article also jumps into the fray, saying that the Bible condones polygamy (which again comes from a failure to read the Bible in context), without giving any justification. Which is another problem I have. People on both sides of issues invoke the authority of the Bible without giving any meaningful proof. And then people say, “You can justify almost anything with the Bible.”

Actually, you can’t, and to throw out that sound bite in hopes of silencing an opponent shows an inability to engage in rational conversation in hopes of changing someone’s mind. We have lost the art of civil discourse in this nation. And we have lost the art of rational discussion. My hope is that we could return to a rational, civil dialogue and engage the Bible in its context without picking and choosing what we like.

I

What the People Want

The French elections have brought an end to Sarkozy’s presidency. I am wondering how far away we are here in America from the types of comments that were reported. It seems at least some of the people didn’t really like the president-elect Hollande, but liked Sarkozy even less. With the debt crisis in Europe (and here as well), one would think that people would vote economics. But it seems that maybe they just don’t have what it takes to endure the pain that will cause. So at least lets be happy while the ship sinks.

“Another Paris voter highlighted this anti-Sarkozy vote, saying she’s backing Hollande, even though his program is ‘suicidal.’”

And the same idea, though worded a little differently…

“‘He’ll raise the minimum wage, increase civil servants. But France is already in debt,’ said Florence Macrez. His fiscal reform project will only increase the pressure especially on the middle class, she added.”

What this screams is not a love of socialism, as some will undoubtedly say, but a vast hopelessness. I would agree that socialist agendas (Hollande wants to raise taxes and increase government spending) have led to the debt crisis, and that people do get used to being cared for by the government to their own detriment, but this just feeds an existence that has been fed so many lies for so long that what has resulted is a hopelessness that pervades all.

The humanist philosophy, which at one time said that man was the measure of all things, has turned on itself and now detests who man is. And the masses have believed it (at least about everyone else). So now they just seek for things to be calm, as one voter put it:

“On behalf of my compatriots, I felt quite insulted. He was so aggressive. I hope things will calm down.”

I met a woman in church one time who said she was leaving because the new pastor seemed too excited. She said church was a place to be calm. She just wanted to come and not be bothered, not convicted, not forced to think. She just wanted to sit and have someone soothe her for an hour. I don’t know if that is the sentiment of the French, but those quotes certainly make it seem that way. Hopefully Hollande can soothe them all as the ship sinks.

The Integrity of the Sport

I have taken a self-imposed hiatus from blogging this semester to focus on other, necessary things (this is a side-line isn’t it?). But I read something today that I can’t pass up. In an age where people are only sorry if they get caught, it refreshes my soul to see someone do the right thing when they aren’t in danger of being caught. J.P. Hayes realized he had used an illegal ball in his round while qualifying for his tour card. He DQ’d himself. In this day and age, people don’t do that. They wait until caught, then deny it, spin it, blame others, and if faced with overwhelming evidence, might read a pre-prepared statement apologizing for their behavior—nothing like an apology in a monotone voice. 

Not Hayes: he realized he did the wrong thing, made a phone call that could conceivably cost him millions of dollars, and in the end new all was well. May his tribe increase.

Lessons from Losing

It finally happened. Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh finally lost a volleyball match. They last lost in mid August of last year—112 matches. Elaine Youngs and Nicole Branagh, which happens to be the same team they lost to last year, beat them in three sets. Instead of focusing on why they lost, I want to focus Youngs and Branagh’s win. 

When I was in high school, we were in the same district as a multiple state champion. The week before we were to play them, our coaches spent a lot of time talking to us about knowing we could play with them, how well we were matched up with them, and what holes they had that we could exploit. They had us believe that we could actually walk on the field and stay with a team that had not been scored on all year except by a ranked team in a higher classification. 

They looked intimidating on film; they looked intimidating when they took the field. They showed a confidence when they lined up across from us that I had not seen ever. But we believed—no, this is not a Facing the Giants story—we lost 40-something to 8. We were, however, only one of two teams to score on them the whole year, including their playoff run to the state championship. And for a whole half, we actually thought we could win. In our minds, they were frustrated by our tenacity and refusal to role over. 

That changed at the start of the second half. They returned the opening kickoff for a TD. We never recovered.

And that happened at the Olympics. Treanor and Walsh would get down and one could see a spark in their opponents’ eyes. But then they would come back, win the opening set, and I could see the spark go out. 

But Youngs and Branagh were not intimidated. They did not give up. They did not roll over when the 112 match winning streak walked onto the court. Many teams that played the state champs that year lost before the opening kickoff. 

What does that have to do with me or you? Sometimes I see life as that state championship team or Treanor-Walsh. It intimidates me, doesn’t let up, keeps pounding: just this morning, I discovered that my rear brake lights won’t go off. I know—a small thing, but one more thing in the never ending stream of things. Not a hurricane like thing. Not a death like thing. Just a life thing—a slow persistent tapping on my shoulder that I am not in charge. And how should I respond? 

With joy! Joy because the Maker of the universe knows my name. And this is an opportunity for me to walk onto the sand and refuse to believe that I will lose. How do you respond to the little and big annoyances in your life?

I Want That Error!

Why would a baseball player want to be charged with an error? When it gets him a no-hitter!

No, no analogy exists with Jesus taking our sins. But I wonder if He could hit CC?

What do you mean by that? Semantics Part II

We talked about denotation vs. connotation today in English class. It brought my last post to mind. Then I read this post, and it reminded me of this vision statement from the Dismantling Racism Task force of the United Methodist Church’s North Texas Conference (these thought trains can be dangerous):

Through the power of the Holy Spirit, the people of the North Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church seek to fulfill the word of God by committing to the full participation of people of all racial identities including their gifts, their worldviews and their cultures.

I actually had an opportunity to talk to one of the authors of the statement. I asked him if he really thought it was a good idea to fully include someone with Hitler’s worldview. His response: “Well, that’s not what we meant.” Well, that is what it says. Or what about a Muslim worldview. And does full participation mean they can be pastors. Without defining terms, this statement is at best unscriptural and at worst a statement of universalism. 

And what does Pete mean when he says,

[Jesus] would…include anybody who came up to him.

I have read Pete’s blog long enough to know what I think he means by that, and it’s not what I think the North Texas Conference means.  I have been around the Methodist Church long enough to know I really didn’t buy it when I was told, 

That’s not what we meant.

I know that I fail to define terms as well, and now this reminds me to work hard to be clear.

How pro-life are you?

Not too long ago, I got into a discussion here about abortion. Today, I read this. How would you respond if this were your daughter? I would be grateful.

Bush on the Ballot in San Francisco: Part II

Yesterday, I quipped that some in San Francisco were hoping to vote George W. Bush into an environmentalist. In reality, they intend far different. They hope to shame him. They hope to humiliate him. They hope to dishonor him. Today, I want to address this facet of American life that knows no political affiliation.

First, God clearly mandates that we give honor to those who hold positions of authority in our lives. Naming a sewage facility after a sitting President for spite does not fit into this category. Now, before the conservative side of my readership (all two of you) cheer, we must remember that those who do not hold the power often imitate their predecessors when they take over. Note this post to see my point. You see, the liberals watched for eight years as conservatives ridiculed, belittled, and dishonored President Clinton. With Rush as their champion, conservatives held the power position of dishonoring speech. The liberals are following the conservatives’ lead.

How do you treat those in authority over you? From your boss at work, to the mayor, to your legislator, to the President, how do you speak of him or her? Do you pray for this person? Do you laugh along with the jokes, however crass?

Now, I do not believe that God’s desire to honor those in leadership means we do not have the right to question and disagree. It must not be done, however, in a dishonoring way. Many vehemently disagree with Bush’s handling of foreign policy. They have the right to speak their minds, to seek the truth, to seek to vote him out of office. Spewing venom, harboring bitterness, and performing actions out of spite do not solve any problems.

Will naming a sewage plant after Bush really resolve people’s feelings about the war in Iraq? Will it make someone feel better? Will it reverse eight years of foreign policy? No. If this passes, it will make San Francisco look like a little boy, sticking his tongue out at his older brother for keeping a secret. The older brother will head off to the ranch, ignoring his brother. The little brother, however, will find that his tongue won’t go back in, and he’ll walk around looking silly for a long time. 

Bush on the ballot in San Francisco

Residents of San Francisco have a big decision ahead of them. Come November, many will be voting for George W. Bush. 

No, Obama hasn’t picked Bush to be his Vice-President. It seems some want to rename the water pollution control plant (that’s a sewage plant for those of you like me who come from a small town) after him. 

We think that it’s important to remember our leaders in the right historical context,” said McConnell, a member of the group that was formed after friends came up with the renaming idea. ”In President Bush’s case, we think that we will be cleaning up a substantial mess for the next 10 or 20 years,” he said. “The sewage treatment facility’s job is to clean up a mess, so we think it’s a fitting tribute.”

The public utilities commission spokesman had this to say about the idea:

The plant that they’re seeking to rename really offers extraordinary environmental benefits.

So there you have it. The people of San Francisco can now use the power of the ballot box to turn Bush into an environmentalist. 

Tune in tomorrow for a different take on this story.

Texas vs. The World

The World Court has ordered the U.S. to stay the execution of some Mexican Nationals, one of which is Jose Medellin. It seems Mexico appealed to the World Court on behalf of this (and others) confessed murderer and rapist of two teenage girls because he and his gang buddies were denied help from their consulate following their arrest. Texas, however, has thumbed its nose at the World Court and President Bush. The U.S. Supreme Court has sided with Texas, telling Bush he has no authority to tell a state court to comply with a ruling from the Hague. 

The article ended saying the World Court had no authority to enforce its rulings. I wonder how long that will last.