Queer Christianity

Terry Magnum thinks sexual perversion is the worst sin.  He thinks homosexuality is perverse, so he felt he was doing God’s work when he murdered Kenneth Cummings Jr. after he looked for a gay man to kill in Houston Texas June fourth.  He told reporters recently “I believed with all my heart that I was doing the right thing.” 

No one deserves to be mistreated, threatened, or treated less-than-human because of some character trait or individual difference that another finds offensive or perverse.  Perversity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.  Each of us is wonderfully and uniquely created by God to be who we are.  We all reflect God’s image regardless of what language we speak, our financial status, what religion we practice, the color of our skin, how much we weigh, our sexual orientation, or for any other reason.  God is reflected in a broad range of diversity.

It will be easy for many of us to simply dismiss Terry Magnum as insane and forget that the incident happened.  The problem is that he didn’t develop that kind of thinking in a vacuum.  The idea came to him for some reason.  Prejudice and discrimination always leads to acts of violence.  When any group begins to think of a subset of people as inferior, someone will get the idea that the inferiority needs to be removed. 

Our society has made great strides toward equality, but there is still an underlying prejudice about those who are sexually queer.  Where does prejudice come from?  It comes from fear.  Where does fear start?  Fear begins when we can’t understand or accept the differences of another.  Many are raised fearful of others due to the color of their skin.  Others are fearful of those who don’t reach a certain social status.  Still others are fearful of people who are attracted to the same gender.  It is easy to think more highly of ourselves, if we are able to think of others as lower.

The church has contributed to this fear, prejudice and hatred.  Even in this enlightened age we have television ministers raising money by causing panic among the viewers.  Millions are told continually that they should be afraid of “the gay agenda.”  They are told that God punishes people for having sex with someone of their own sex.  It is not a far jump for weak minded people to think that they would indeed be doing the work of God by punishing homosexuals. 

I trust Mr. Magnum will be convicted of murder.  I believe it will be considered a hate crime which will mean that he will have a harder time being paroled.  He is not the only one who should be charged however.  The politicians that he has heard demonize queers should be convicted as well.  They commit the hate crime just as much as Mr. Magnum.  The preachers he has heard warn of the threat of homosexuality should be convicted as well.  Their hands are covered with the blood of an innocent. 

This murder did not happen in a vacuum.  It happened as a part of a conspiracy; a conspiracy to keep control over others by proclaiming homosexuality as evil; a conspiracy to raise money by making people think that those who love someone of the same sex are a threat to society.  This is a fraud of the worst kind.  Murder resulted from this conspiracy to defraud the faithful.  Guilt is spread to all of those who participated in the fraud, from the pew to the pulpit and the cathedral.  It will be a long time before the blood of the innocent will be able to be cleaned from the hands of those who conspired. 

I am worried about the “values” of the United States Military.  Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons come to mind as examples of a lack of concern for human rights within our military structure.  Not to mention the fact that we attacked a country that never attacked us.  We attacked a country that was never a threat to the United States until after we attacked and created an environment for terrorists to take a stand.  The War in Iraq brings shame to those of us who believe that a just war does not include being the aggressor nation. 

James chapter 4 refers to those who fight and attack others because of a desire to have something that they have.  I’m not sure what the multiple and complex reasons are for the war in Iraq, but I’m fairly confident that they include Middle East oil.  Of course politicians can’t tell us that we may be trading the blood of our youth for oil.

The spokesman from Fort Bragg Army Base in NC used the word “values” in an interesting context this week.  According to the Fayetteville Observer, Col Billy J. Buckner said, “We take this issue seriously, and the soldier’s conduct does not reflect the values we adhere to in the Army."  An Unnamed soldier was discharged from the 1st Battalion of the 321st Field Artillery Regiment. 

In light of the violence, detention, and human rights abuses of the U.S. Military, what could this man have done that was so horrible it disagreed with this Army’s values?  He appeared on a gay military-themed pornography site.  His discharge was because he admits to being gay and was therefore let go based on the flawed policy of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 

The Army doesn’t think that being gay fits with its values.  I’m not sure the United States military has a clue how to make value judgments.  Obviously someone’s sense of right and wrong is far askew if they promote violence and human rights violations, but are worried about who someone has sex with.  I want good soldiers to protect my country.  I don’t care who they have sex with.  Why should it matter?

Some may argue that the issue is pornography.  Whether we like it or not we have this great thing in the United States called the “Bill of Rights”   Among the very first guaranteed rights given to Americans is freedom of speech.  I don’t want children watching pornography.  But adults should have the right to watch sexual pornography if they like, and certainly a soldier should have the right to make porn, so long as it doesn’t impact his ability to perform his job as a soldier.   When did the giving and receiving of pleasure, without causing harm, become a bad thing?

Individual freedom is an American value, regardless of whether it is a value of the U.S. Army. Americans should fight to uphold the rights of everyone to love the one they love rather than to be forced into a norm that is contrary to the individual’s nature.  Soldiers should not be dismissed because they are attracted to the same sex.  The freedom to love must win out over those who feel that everyone must express their love the same way as the majority of the people.  I hate to sound like a hippie from decades past, but we really should be making love, not war.   

Over the past two weeks a couple of contradictory messages have been given by the Roman Catholic Church.  The first is a repeat of the church’s doctrine of “primacy.”  Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the position that the Roman Catholic Church is the “one true church” and that all others are “defective.”  Other churches are merely “ecclesial communities” and therefore do not have a “means of salvation.”  

This is not a new idea; it has been the position of the church for hundreds of years.  However, the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) seemed to take a more moderate and ecumenical approach. 

Benedict appears to want to correct what he considers to be “erroneous and ambiguous” interpretations of the principles of Vatican II.  The argument is based on the idea that the Roman Church is the only one with Apostolic Succession.  This is the idea that one's ordination can be traced back through the ages to the original Apostles.  It is incredible to think that anyone has genuine accurate records of such ordinations all the way back to the first century. There were three hundred years of persecution where they were done in secret.  However, the Roman Church is not the only one that has Apostolic Succession.  Orthodox churches, the Anglican Communion, Independent Catholics, and many other Protestant denominations can make just as accurate a claim as Rome.  In fact, I can trace my own Apostolic Succession back to both Rome and Constantinople.  It isn't who placed their hands on you that makes one a representative of Christ.  It takes a great deal more than that to show a true Christian.

Another interesting phenomenon within the Roman Catholic Church has been the announcement by Cardinal Roger Mahoney of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, of huge payouts to victims of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests.  He included, what seemed to me like a rather half-hearted apology to the victims.  Actions speak louder than words, and I don’t believe the Roman Church has taken enough action to protect children from her priests.  Simple payment of money does not show true repentance, unless the changes needed to prevent abuses follow.

In total the Roman Catholic Church has paid out over 2 billion dollars to victims of sexual abuse by priests since 1950.  This is explained in the book Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes: The Catholic Church's 2,000-Year Paper Trail of Sexual Abuse by Thomas Doyle. 

The Vatican seems to be delusional.  This Pope believes that the church he leads is the only “means of salvation” for the world, yet he is head of a morally corrupt cabal that refuses to deal with reality.  Some suggestions for change might include allowing priests to marry.  The attempt at chastity, that is rarely possible, causes men to deny their natural desires instilled by God and therefore they seek perverted ways of meeting those needs.

The church is a haven for many struggling with their sexual orientation.  Unable to confront their families and society and admit their God-given nature, they find it easy to become a priest; since no one will then ask why they aren’t married.  Therefore, another suggestion to change the institutional corruptness of Roman Catholicism would be to stop demonizing sexual minorities and allow people to be true to themselves.  If the church would take a humane position toward those who are sexually queer, there would be far fewer problems with misdirected sexual energy toward perversion within the ranks of priests.

The Bible teaches that salvation comes through Christ’s finished work, not through a church.  Thank God this is true.  If we had to rely on the immoral cabal of Roman Catholics to gain our means of salvation, the world would be in deep shit indeed.  

The argument that same sex marriage will destroy heterosexual marriage continues to be a part of our national debate.  The argument is so strong that the presidential candidates, regardless of how progressive or gay friendly they appear, refuse to support gay marriage equality.  Instead, they fear political suicide and take some less-than-equal position if they bother saying anything at all.  The only Republican candidate who had a fairly favorable position on equality at one time reversed his position lately and said that he does not support gay marriage.

The argument that allowing same-sex couples to marry will hurt marriage is flawed at its core.  The only possible way same-sex marriage could hurt opposite-sex marriages is if we assume that same-sex marriage would be preferred by the majority of the population.  It would follow then that, if given the choice, most people would prefer to be in a same-sex relationship. 

History does not support this view.  Those societies that have been open about homosexuality never were threatened with more people turning homosexual. The modern societies that have allowed same-sex marriage have not in any way caused a decline in opposite-sex marriages.   In reality, the number of people attracted to the same sex has always been, and likely always will be, a relatively small percentage of the population.  Allowing equality for minorities is a basic principle of the checks and balances of our form of government.  The United States is supposed to be a place of refuge where minority rights are protected.

The August 14, 2007 issue of The Advocate magazine published interesting survey results about the kinds of relationships queer folks are involved in.  A full 59% of those responding to the survey were in committed relationships.  Ten percent of these have been together for longer than 15 years.  It certainly doesn’t appear that same-sex couples are any less serious about their relationships than opposite sex couples.   The CDC’s National Vital Statistic Report for 2006 continues to show that the marriage rate of opposite-sex couples is only about 50% more than the divorce rate of opposite sex couples.   

Opposite-sex couples have many social and economic pressures to stay married that same-sex couples simply do not have.  These benefits of marriage have not been extended to same-sex couples, yet same-sex couples still enter into relationships and stay with them at a very positive rate.  The Advocate survey also reported that only 7% of the same-sex couples cheated on the other.  The vast majority (68%) is monogamous, about 25% were not exclusive sexually, but with mutual agreement.   

I doubt opposite-sex couples could claim any better numbers than these.  It appears to me that allowing same-sex couples to marry would strengthen the institution of marriage rather than cause any harm.  Same-sex couples stay together and dedicated to one another as much or more often than opposite-sex couples do.   

There is no threat from equality.  Equality, liberty and justice should be for everyone, not just for those who are attracted to the opposite sex.

I continue to be amazed at the amount of fear expressed toward sexual minorities.  What is it that is so fearful?  How is any relationship based on love and commitment a threat to any other relationship?  The obvious answer is that other people’s relationships are not something to be feared.  I tend to think we should each worry about our own.  Maybe Senator Sam Brownback should keep this advice in mind.

President Bush reached a compromise and appointed a judge to the Federal bench that was more liberal than two others who fall far more close to Bush’s own views.  It was a deal where the President was supposed to get two who agreed with him on the bench in return for one who disagreed.  It is a no-brainer; the conservatives still have the most influence.  He nominated Janet T. Neff of Michigan to U.S. District Court. 

Senator Sam Brownback, a Republican of Kansas, has used a procedural maneuver to block the Senate’s consent to the appointment.  His concern is that she spoke at a union of two women in Massachusetts in 2002.  Neff responded in writing to the Senator that the ceremony was for a close family friend, and she had no legal standing at the ceremony whatsoever.  This was prior to gay marriage, and a UCC minister officiated at the event.  She was a judge in Michigan not Massachusetts.  Judge Neff only spoke in support of her friend.

The fact that the judge participated causes alarm for the ambitious Senator from Kansas.  He doesn’t accept her response because she wouldn’t answer questions about her views of gay marriage.  She claimed it would show bias to express an opinion on something that could come before the court in the future.

Perhaps the Senator should do some research about how judges are supposed to act.  The American Barr Association Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 clearly states that “A judge shall not, with respect to cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of the judiciary.”  Perhaps a primer for the Senator to start with is, Lawyers' Ethics and the Pursuit of Social Justice: A Critical Reader, by Susan D Carle

The Senator is clearly not interested in following the law, or having an impartial court.  He wants to grandstand for name recognition so he can attempt a run at the presidency.  Once again, politicians are creating fears that do not exist in order to divide the electorate.  Senator Brownback is a perfect example of those unscrupulous characters that will use a wedge issue for personal gain.

Rather than an impartial court, or a fair hearing before the Senate, Brownback has already decided to run the country following the principle of “guilt by association.”  And, Oh My God! The judge has a lesbian friend.  How frightful!

Using this model, Brownback would deny many people fair hearing, including Jesus who had plenty of politically incorrect buddies.