April 27, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. “Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. . . .

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who are laughing now, for you will mourn and weep.” —Luke 6:20–25

My friend Robert and his wife were visiting for a week from the Midwest. We got into long conversations about how different California is from where they live, and how different the churches are. Robert is African-American, and an astute observer of the almost completely white culture around him, including church culture.

It seems to me that most of all, the line between Christian values and social attitudes gets completely blurred out, so that where you live and what the social setting is like will profoundly impact your faith life. In the part of the Midwest where Robert lives, successful middle and upper-middle class people with Republican politics and conformist social attitudes prevail. He has heard a lot of frustration and anger, for example, over the decision that the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America made last summer to finally open its doors to partnered gay and lesbian clergy. And he hears a lot of frustration and anger about politics under the Obama administration. “they’ve taken my country away! I want my country back!” he says dramatically, imitating the big tears from his neighbors and even his brother-in-law.

If there is any one thing which is pulling this country apart, it is the underlying sense of privilege and entitlement held by many of its citizens. the people who currently have and hoard privileges will “squeal like a stuck pig” at the slightest suggestion that they must share those privileges with others who do not have them. (If you pool together all of the individual pleas for justice, equality and a decent life from many quarters that are individually dismissed as “special interests” you get a picture of the great big chunk of our nation’s people who don’t have privileges.)

Of course privilege and entitlement are grounded in or mixed up with a belief in the scarcity of all things. I cannot share my wealth with others, for example, because then I won’t have as much. I cannot share equality or justice with others because then I would suffer injustice. Blah, blah, blah.

Racism is a belief that one’s race entitles one to privileges that persons of another race cannot or should not have.

The current rant about illegal immigration is intimately tied into racism, where “Mexicans” (a conflated label for all Latin Americans used by people who are not Latin American) are the “new niggers.”

People with power and privilege, of course, have always maneuvered everything that power and privilege affords them to keep their power and privilege. Legislators who feel privileged and powerful will write the laws and stack the decks to keep their perks. Banks and insurance companies will continue to rig our entire economic system to keep themselves rich. But when the aggregate of “special interests” team up on them – often called “populism”—people of privilege begin to “stoke the fires of indignation”—a phrase form Rachel Maddow that fits a lot of extremist politics going on right now.

In my view, much of the perpetual partisan impasse in Congress and in state legislatures is grounded in this sense that privilege and entitlement are endangered. Politicians who would rather say “no” to everything are implicitly saying “no change” in the status quo, And to defend the status quo is not to say that the world is perfect the way it is, but to say that my position in the world as it is must be defended at all costs.

From a Christian point of view—not one overly affected by the comfortable social values of the middle and upper classes—defending privilege and entitlement is completely contrary to the Gospel of Jesus. His dire warnings were mostly directed at the privileged classes of his ancient society: the priests, scribes and Pharisees that formed the upper social class. Yes, it seems wrong to mix politics and religion (some readers of this will have quit about eight paragraphs ago!), but the fix for that is to not let the politics of privilege influence our faith in God’s justice and care for all people, especially those who have not privileges or entitlement.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Doctrine, Public Affairs, ELCA | Print | No Comments »

April 23, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

Dear friend,

Last week, President Obama issued an historic memorandum to help ensure equal access to hospital visits and decision-making rights for same-sex couples.

It’s a critical step forward for the rights of same-sex couples, one we’ve been working on with the White House for the past year.

The Department of Health and Human Services must issue regulations implementing the President’s directive, and those won’t go into effect for at least several months. If you’re part of a same-sex couple and you want to make the most of those forthcoming protections and protect your family as much as possible right now – you must have the proper legal documentation in place.

So what documents do you need exactly? You’ll need visitation forms to make sure your family and friends can visit you, as well as a health care proxy and living will to ensure that those who know you the best can make medical decisions on your behalf in an emergency.

You can find out more and download sample forms at: http://www.hrc.org/issues/protect-your-visitation-and-decision-making-rights.htm

Posted in LGBT Rights, Public Affairs | Print | No Comments »

April 22, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Last night at Bible study we turned the page to chapter 4 of John’s Gospel, the famed story of the Samaritan woman at the well, who had previously had five husbands and was now apparently intimate with a man who was not her husband. A lot of people have looked at this and supposed that Jesus turned a blind eye to sexual sin. That is hardly the case, but his answer to sexual wrong-doing is not condemnation but spiritual re-direction.

Nonetheless, the story is embedded in John’s Gospel to remind us that Jesus “stepped over the line” on a lot of issues or public propriety. Later he will stop the religious street mob from killing a woman who had been caught in adultery. He will intervene for a man who had been born blind and was supposed by the religious “groupthink” of the day to have either been a terrible sinner or his parents had been, for him to be punished with blindness. Repeatedly Jesus deflects the religious judgment of petty minds and points to a broader, more compassionate answer to human failings.

The sexual issue is not the first line in this story, however, that Jesus steps across. The first is that he even entered into the region of Samaria. In his time, Samaria was not part of the Jewish homeland. Its people accepted the authority of Moses, and the patriarch Jacob’s well was there on the edge of town. But to the Jews, Samaritans were considered half-breeds or outsiders whose bloodlines were far from pure, and whose religious practices were not “orthodox.”

Samaritans had come to accept this prejudice from the Jews, in a way not too different from how African-Americans accept that white Americans harbor a lot of prejudice today.

When Jesus enters Samaria (which he didn’t have to do except that he felt the necessity to go there for the sake of his mission), he stops at old Jacob’s well and he is thirsty. When a woman comes by to draw water, she accepts the prevail prejudices: that this Jewish man should not even be in Samaria, that this stranger would not approach a woman in public, and certainly that he would not ask her for a drink of water.

The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.) Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?”

The fact that Jesus has no bucket is significant for two reasons.  One is that he is talking about spirituality welling up from within one’s soul.  But the situation supposes that the woman could draw water and offer it to him to drink, either from the bucket or from a cup or ladle.  Except that “Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.”  The underlying racism of this scene smacks us in the face. It was unthinkable to the Samaritan woman that a Jewish man would want to drink from her bucket or her cup when the two ethnic groups (with a common ancestor) shared nothing in common. The town well was the virtual equivalent of a drinking fountain in our culture.  It was expected and accepted that Jews and Samaritans would not share the same drinking fountain.

So it is not a stretch to see the racial tension in this story.  And it is not difficult to see that Jesus voluntarily steps over the line of common cultural prejudices:  he ignores the fact that men were not to approach women in public, that Jews were never to be involved with Samaritans (or worse, with Gentiles a.k.a. pagans), and especially that they would not share drinking implements. 

With a little prodding and study, Christians can at least “get it” that Jesus breaks down barriers, overlooks or overturns rules, customs, habits, prejudices.  What I do not get, however, is that if Jesus is Lord and he clearly shows that he is no respecter of race or ethnic prejudice, or gender prejudice, how and why can people who claim to follow Jesus (a.k.a. Christians) ever harbor prejudice based on gender or ethnicity (or many other prejudices which we harbor)?

The bottom line is that in all of his teaching—whether with words or by example—Jesus did everything to show his disciples that we must get over our sense of privilege and entitlement.  Until Christians really and fully “get” this, and admit to their own foolish and evil ways in being racist or sexist, etc., they will not get why homophobia is also completely wrong for Christians.  Clearly, there is no way to rationalize away our sense of entitlement or privilege if we follow Jesus, because he will not go there. If we are seeking the path of entitlement or privilege sustained by prejudice, bigotry and hatred, we have taken a different path than the one Jesus is on, and we are no longer his disciples.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Homophobia, Sex, Doctrine, Bible & Interpretation | Print | No Comments »

April 18, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

These are threads of dialogue based on an article link forwarded by Billy Glover from the Bilarico Project.

Posted: 07 Apr 2010 12:00 PM PDT

“With the far right and the professional Christian set all in a dither about the possible upcoming vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, I guess it is no surprise that the faux experts at the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) - a Christian right affiliate intended to dupe the unwary - are stepping up a new campaign based on the old “choice myth” as I call it. Desperate to convince voters - and more members of Congress - that sexual orientation is a choice and changeable, a new webpage with purported ‘facts’ has been trotted out that regurgitates the same old worn out lies. In a letter to school superintendents ACP endeavors to frighten school administrators into resisting any sort of gay affirming policies or programs. The propaganda piece starts out in part as follows:

Continue reading The Only “Choice”: Coming Out of “Situational Heterosexuality” …

“In this regard, former ‘ex-gay’ evangelical minister Anthony Venn-Brown calls it like it is. Brown, now one of Australia’s leading LGBT activists, has a much more honest approach to the issue of changing one’s sexual orientation. Namely, that it is impossible unless one is engaged in ‘situational heterosexuality’ which he equates with gay men in heterosexual marriages. The phenomenon is the opposite of the situational homosexuality found in prisons and other all same gender settings.”

Nice phrase, “situational heterosexuality.” As a “vocational extrovert” I can testify that people can fake pretty much anything —including sexual attraction and even sexual performance. After generations of homosexuals who, when entrapped or blackmailed would vehemently insist they were not homosexual, is it any wonder than social conservatives would take that at face value because it would seem to confirm their prejudice that everybody is/has to be/should be heterosexual? One comment posted in response to the above quotes:

I will say that while I think sexual orientation as well as gender identity are not changeable for most or at least many of us (neither were or are for me), I do think it is a mistake to think that LGBT rights should stand or fall on the mutability / changeability issue. Religion is mutable / changeable, clearly a “lifestyle choice,” yet is protected.

To me the mutability issue is an utter red herring and it would be a serious mistake to frame the debate in those terms.

very respectfully, ~mina

Mina [who posted the comment April 8] is absolutely point on! This “change/can’t change” argument was something I always tried to engage sincerely until somebody pointed out the obvious that religion is a choice. Why should “choice” be considered a deal-breaker for civil rights? Need we be reminded of the First Amendment to the Federal constitution?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Wikipedia has a good solid entry on this amendment and all its legal case history; see especially the gay angle under Freedom of Association.]

Religion is a personal choice in America. Freedom of religion in this country is therefore freedom of choice. Speech is also a choice, and free speech is protected. Ditto on freedom of association. If the constitution protects these freedoms to choose, why should not gender identity and sexual orientation — indeed sexual preference be another choice that one can make with complete freedom and enjoy the equal right to make that choice?

The American College of Pediatricians, by the way, seems to be a bonafide organization of doctors, established only 7 ½ years ago.  (See the Right Wing watch Infopedia page above.)  It is not a sham organization or front for social conservatives. It’s just a bunch of social conservatives who view the world through lenses twisted sharply to the right. And yes, it seems as if the ACP’s professional label was calculated to confuse and co-opt the name of the more highly respected American Academy of Pediatrics. Certainly, the ACP letter to educators seems calculated to deflect professional educators from doing their own search for authoritative facts and research on homosexuality.

The ACP is not in step with the mainstream of professionals who know and work with children. For example, Pediatrics in Review has an abstract of published research that would completely counter the right-wing view (but we knew that already) that children raised by gay parents are not going to come out as well as with heterosexual parents:

There are no data to suggest that children who have gay or lesbian parents are different in any aspects of psychological, social, and sexual development from children in heterosexual families. There has been fear that children raised in gay or lesbian households will grow up to be homosexual, develop improper sex-role behavior or sexual conflicts, and may be sexually abused. There has been concern that children raised by gay or lesbian parents will be stigmatized and have conflicts with their peer group, thus threatening their psychological health, self-esteem, and social relationships. These fears and concerns have not been substantiated by research. Pediatricians can facilitate the health care and development of these children by being aware of these and their own attitudes, by educating themselves about special concerns of gay or lesbian parents, and by being a resource and an advocate for children who have homosexual parents.

Sadly, the ACP’s “fact sheet” called “What You Should Know About Sexual Orientation of Youth” is a one-page bulleted list of unsubstantiated opinions and misrepresentations. The worst three: the homosexual lifestyle, especially for males, carries grave health risks; sexual reorientation therapy has proven effective for those with unwanted homosexual attractions; regardless of an individual’s sexual orientation, sexual activity is a conscious choice.”

Again, we’re all entitled to our own opinions, but we’re not entitled to our own facts.

—Pastor Dan Hooper

Posted in Health, Public Affairs, Ex-Gay, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

April 16, 2010 by Pastor Dan.

Our Wednesday studies engage a wide diversity of people who are not (yet?) members of our congregation, but who find their spiritual centering in our midst. This week we were discussing this passage at the end of John 3.

It seems there are basically two rules or systems which may govern our relationship with God and one another. The one is the rule of rewards and punishments. The other is the rule of grace. In the Bible, of course, we find language that is descriptive of both, and so it takes enormous discernment to give weight to each of these and to decide by which rule we will live.Under the rule of rewards and punishments, we will always strive for reward and try to avoid punishment. We will measure our achievement and calculate our relationship both to God and to other human beings on the basis of how we can gain rewards and what we might lose or suffer. The bottom line is that we will expect our behavior and good works (or our abstaining from bad things) counts for something, and that in the end—the judgment day—we will receive the ultimate rewards of eternal bliss, a heavenly mansion, a heavenly banquet, a crown, etc.

But under that rule of rewards and punishments, we become more like Muslims than different from them, for they too hope to receive entrance to Paradise on the judgment day, except of course that their doctrine affords them no advance certainty that God will grant to them the eternal reward.

The rule of grace, on the other hand, cares little about rewards or punishment. We stop measuring our performance against a standard which is impossible. We simply live under grace, honest in the knowledge that we do not deserve it yet confident that we have already received it without measure. Under grace, we are not ultimately terrified about damnation, for the scripture assures us that we may draw near to the throne of grace with confidence.

Moral theology, especially under the definition of the medieval Catholic system, would attempt to marry these two rules together, but in fact that results in a tragic, upended mishmash in which grace must be subordinated to law. When Lutherans insist— relying on where St. Paul tells us that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, and that all are justified by God’s grace apart from the law— we do not mean that grace is merely the strength we need from beyond ourselves to perform all the required works and deeds and abstinences of moral law. Rather we mean that we are wholly and completely justified —not by any effort on our part nor by refraining from anything, nor even confessing to our sinful nature and our manifold iniquities—only and totally as a free and undeserved gift from God for Christ’s sake.

If it is not the melding of these two rules, which I think is destructive at best, here is the bottom line: It is left to each of us to choose under which rule we will order our lives—whether under the rule of rewards and punishments, or under the rule of grace. If we voluntarily choose the system of rewards and punishments, we may be caught up in a giddy hopefulness for an exclusive parcel of eternal real estate, but in this life we will be preoccupied with fear of punishment and with being given credit for each correct moral choice we make and the sum of our accomplishments.

But if we voluntarily choose the rule of grace, all those things pale before the wonder-filled knowledge of God’s generous love and forgiveness, whereby gratitude for God’s gifts of grace so overwhelms our hearts that our life itself overflows with generosity and compassion.

This topic will be more fully explored on my other web site Gay Catechism. 

—Pastor Dan Hooper, Los Angeles

Posted in Doctrine, Gay Catechism, Bible & Interpretation, Ecumenical Issues, Living by Grace, Fundamentalism, Spirituality | Print | No Comments »

April 3, 2010 by Dan Hooper.

It’s so nice to know that out here on the lunatic fringe we uphold traditional values (such as serial polygamy a.k.a. repeated divorce and remarriage), while back there in the hotbed of Lutheranism, their ho-hum ahh shucks brand of social values now seems to have taken same-sex marriage in stride. Even Governor Chet “Protect Marriage” Culver has backed way off his theat to stop gay marriage via the state constitution.

—Dan HooperAttitudes change in Iowa as marriage equality marks 1 year

By Ruth Schneider, 365gay.com • 04.03.2010 7:00am EDT

“Midwest rebel state Iowa marks the one-year anniversary of marriage equality in the state on Saturday. And state gay rights groups are looking to the future, hoping to mark many more anniversaries.”

Read the entire article here.

Posted in Lesbian/Gay Marriage, LGBT Rights, Public Affairs, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »