I'm Having Trouble Hearing You

A Lament For Hudsonville's School Board Meetings

This is not an attempt to pick a fight. This is part an expression of my grief and sorrow, and another part an attempt to hold up a mirror. It feels presumptious to say this, but it feels like a small sliver of what MLK wrote in Letter from Birmingham Jail when he wrote

There's a high level of lament to be sure, but I'm realizing that there is also a glimmer of hope in the writing of those words. If the disconnect is never brought to light it can't be addressed and wrestled with, and nothing will ever change.

So I hope some can watch this and feel their own lament put into words; while others watch like a mirror.

I’m sorry, can you say that again?

I’m having trouble hearing you.

I'm having trouble hearing you say you want neutrality while wearing the logo of a far right conspiracy theory that says we’re cannibalistic pedophiles and constantly calling us enemies of the state.

I'm having trouble hearing you say you’re for all children while you spend your three minutes complaining about a book that simply acknowledges others’ existence.

I'm having trouble hearing you say you’re for safe schools while you use gang tactics to show your strength at board meetings.

I'm having trouble hearing you say this is a matter for the heart and home while you shout and boo at those who disagree with you in public.

I'm having trouble hearing you say you just want answers while you choose to ignore every answer you’ve been given.

I'm having trouble hearing you say “we want the same thing” when you’re spending so much time and energy working against it for anyone who doesn’t look and believe just like you.

I'm having trouble hearing you say you don’t feel safe when it’s your friends and allies that are surrounding you, clogging the exits, following people out of rooms, screaming while pounding on doors, and walking up to speak with a gun holster on display for all to see.

I'm having trouble hearing you say there’s no signs that say someone isn’t welcome while you demand the removal of everything that says they are.

You speak loudly.

But man, is it hard to hear you.

This started off as me just jotting notes to process the past few board meetings. As it was taking shape I thought of turning it into another letter to the editor. But as it continued being formed the pattern and rhythm emerged and I realized it had to be spoken word.

The following was submitted to my school board members, and a local news organization in hopes of publication as a letter to the editor. Unfortunately, its way over the word count they suggest, so I'm presenting it here.

update on 4/27 Just heard from the paper, they're going to publish it! Will update with a link when available

At this point we’ve all likely seen the articles and the petitions circling around the Hudsonville School Board’s April meeting. But while the anti-maskers were causing a stir outside, the comments inside largely focused on the lives of some of the most vulnerable students in our schools - racial minorities and lgbt+ youth. Youth that were targeted with hateful messages when a church down the road from the High School was vandalised less than a year ago.

Unfortunately there was more of that same hate shown from some of the adults who spoke during that board meeting. The language contained less cursing, but the message was still the same - you are not welcome here.

America has a long and dirty history when it comes to saying "all". One of our most revered documents states clearly that "all men are created equal" - but it was written by men who owned other men on land that was stolen through the slaughter of others. All lives have never mattered, intentionally, from the beginning.

And then we get the 3/5ths compromise, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, segregation, the KKK, lynchings, Montgomery, Tulsa, red lining,the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and on and on and on.

All Lives Matter has never meant all lives in our country. And when it is used as a response to Black Lives Matter, it's clearly weaponized language used by those with power to dismiss and belittle those without. It's our modern day equivalent of the boom of confederacy statues being put up during the height of the civil rights movement. It's an attempt to silence those trying to use their voice for equality, and to further push an unequal status quo.

That’s why it’s so heartbreaking to hear that the school has decided the phrase “Black Lives Matter” has to be removed because it was deemed to be political. The fight for equality is always political - because it’s a fight against a powerful status quo held up by unchallenged policies and practices. George Washington was political to Great Britain. Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King - all political. Are none of them allowed in the school?

Furthermore, it’s laughable to think that Black Lives Matter material is political but that somehow it’s removal isn’t. There’s no neutral in the fight for equality - you’re either actively fighting for it, or you enable the continuation of the unequal status quo - even with silence.

In April of 1963 MLK was in Birmingham Alabama, leading a march against racism and racial segregation. Shortly before his arrival the powers that be banned his gathering - he was deemed to be too political. He and his fellow civil rights activists persisted and were ultimately arrested and thrown in jail. During the first few days of his detainment a group of local clergy published a piece in the paper criticizing King for taking direct action in his fight for equality - it was the “All Lives Matter” refrain echoing through time. Here’s a snippet of his response:

58 years later - and only one day before the exact anniversary of their writing - the Board of Education meeting in our town proved these words are just as true today as they were then.

So what now? Do we do nothing and allow an unequal system to continue on unchecked by those with the power to act, leaving our children to bear the brunt of our inaction? Because from the young voices that spoke at the board meeting that’s exactly what’s happening. Or do we truly teach our children how to be citizens of a global community, how to properly yield power, and how to work toward a positive peace?

It’s time for us to act, because our children deserve better.

If you'd like to add your voice calling for Black Lives Matter content to be displayed within the school, you can sign the change.org petition, or reach out directly to the members of the board of education.

What have we accomplished?

• Minneapolis is disbanding its incredibly racist police force and are going to be going with a community based model
• George Floyd's murderer was very quickly arrested
• George Floyd's murderers accomplices were eventually arrested
• George Floyd's murderer's sentence was increased to match his crime
• Michigan politicians have introduced and passed bi partisan legislation calling for additional training around implicit bias, the ban of chokeholds, and other reforms the movement has been calling for.

It's pretty exciting because change is slow, but after 7 years its finally starting to happen.

How are we protesting the death of just one man?

It's not just one man. Just this past couple of weeks its been 3 lives taken by police brutality and racism, and a 4th threatened. And those are just the instances we know of in the past little bit. In addition to the numerous black deaths that have been protested, the BLM movement and organization has also stood up and spoken out for white victims of police brutality, but its not just about race, its about systemic issues in policing.

Captain Dorn, the Pawn Shop Security Man

Holy shit -- I thought he was trying to make the case against BLM when he just perfectly described some of the biggest issues baked within the police force.

George Floyd should not have been killed by the police, full stop.

Captain Dorn should not have been killed by rioters, full stop.

But you can't ignore the fact that cops have been doing this and BLM has been calling it out for the past 7 years and the first time you seem to have a problem with it is when the shoe is on the other foot. The irony of this is insane.

9 people?!?!?

Where in the world is he pulling that stat from? 9 people? That's just bullshit.

Justification -- ~4:00

FUCK ANYONE WHO THINKS KILLING SOMEONE OVER A FAKE $20 BILL IS EVER JUSTIFIED! Figure out how to say this without using fuck. (On second thought... nope)

And lets talk about those shootings being "justified". We have an incredibly long history of cops getting away with this stuff. We keep learning that the cops who are killing unarmed black men and women should not be cops. Numerous violations and other issues have lead to them being fired from other departments, only to end up working at another one. I don't know that there's a large coverup like there was in the cases of the pedophile priests, but it definitely has that kind of feel where people aren't held accountable and instead get shipped off elsewhere to repeat their offenses all over again. Police constantly don't get charged due to police cover ups, bad actors in union leadership, prosecutors that have to work closely with police not wanting to jeopardize that relationship, and most importantly an us vs them mentality where the "good cops" refuse to step up and hold the "bad cops" responsible.

If you have any doubt of that fact, look no further than New York State police this week. Two officers that were a part of the emergency response team shoved a peaceful 75 year old man to the ground where they left him to bleed from the ears and just kept walking. The man was not a physical threat in any way and the police escalated to violence instantly. When those two officers were held accountable for their actions every other officer on that team resigned from that voluntary post. This is simply a culture were any accountability is not welcome, and any attempts are meat with the utmost resistance.

And even in the incredibly rare instances where justice is actually pursued, you quickly run into a justice system that seems to be designed to minimize black and brown voices at every turn, and is incredibly stacked in the police's favor to the detriment of the communities they are supposedly protecting and serving. But we're not even halfway through the video so instead of ranting further read the book The New Jim Crow.

Degranded and animalistic

Wow -- I did not expect such racist language from this guy. But I guess he is a former police officer after all.

But let's quickly dispel the blakc-on-black crime bull shit. First off, this has nothing to do with police brutality, so I'm not even sure why it's being brought up. Wait, yes I do, its a great distraction from people who don't want to actually address systemic racism. But what the hell, since he mentioned it I'll go for it.

Basically all crime is geographically based. Meaning, people aren't going very far to commit crimes. That plays out in a nation with an incredibly recent racist past of doing everything they can to keep black people contained to certain geographic areas, along with the incredibly real white flight, means our nation's housing is incredibly segregated. So, if crime is largely limited to your own geography, and our racist past and current means that we are segregated, then any crime committed by a black person is statistically going to be against a black person, just like crimes committed by a white person are statistically going to be against a white person.

Funny how an attempt to distract from systemic racism actually brings us back to more systemic racism, almost as if we've been deciding not to properly deal with this shit for hundreds of years...

WE AGREE! Hooray! ~4:30

If the only thing you've done is posted a black square, I hope you see that as an entry point, not the finish line.

Shortly Thereafter...

And back to hard disagree. Me recognizing my white privilege doesn't mean I haven't had a hard life, it means the color of my skin isn't one of the things making it hard.

But we do agree that there has been a lot of what's called "performative protesting" and selfies posted to instagram from everyone to see. So, let me say clearly -- ATTENTION FELLOW WHITE PEOPLE, if you are at a protest led by black organization, you are not in control, you are there as support for the black voices. If you are there to prove your "wokeness" with selfies, or to tell other people how to fight for equality, you are in the wrong spot. You are there as an ally, and you follow what the movements leaders tell you. You stay off the frontlines unless there's a call for allies to the front, and if you are not ok with being arrested or tear gassed or beaten or having the fire hoses and the dogs set on you too, then you need to check if you are ready to be an ally to people who are.

Even this post is a little borderline for me. But sometimes white folks need to "collect their own '' because it's not the job of oppressed people to educate their oppressors on their oppression, it's their job to demand justice.

And before you start in on the "but I'm not racist" trip in my mentions...

It's not enough to just be "not racist" when our nation's institutions, and really our entire nation, was founded on the idea of white supremacy and manifest destiny. We have indirectly benefited from systems that treat white as the gold standard and anything else as less than. It's shitty to realize that, and it takes time because it's hard work, but it's true. I, as a white male, have been given lots of benefits of doubt that my non-white brothers and sisters would not receive. And, since my voice at least holds some power (at least in part to that historical system) its up to me to be anti-racist, to speak up for injustice, and to fight for those that have been disadvantaged by the system that has unknowingly and undeservingly advantaged me. To remain silent only enforces an unjust status quo. And, if I am to take my call as a Christian seriously I have to be aware of the fact that the first answer to the question of "What does the Lord require of you" is "to act justly", and silence in the face of injustice isn't acting justly.

Footnote, that specific reference is from Micah 6:8, but I could easily make that argument from nearly any book in the Bible, it's pretty clear about this kind of stuff, and a handful of the numerous colleges I went to were Christian/Bible colleges and I (at least sometimes) paid attention.

Here We Go Again... ~5:48

Oh good lord, here we go again, the consistent berating of the dead. This happens every time. Respectability politics. That's a real thing, you should google it. But here's the thing NONE OF THAT MATTERS! THERE IS NO LAW IN AMERICA THAT IS PUNISHABLE BY PUBLIC EXECUTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. Read that again because I'm sick of having to type it every time someone is killed by police and they try to distract from the murder by a public smear campaign against the dead.

Hova!

So the only way for a black man to succeed is to be the absolute best at what he does and move away from where he grew up? You seem to forget that Jay-Z sold crack and shot his own brother. How are you going to go from shitting on someone for a drug habit to praising someone who started off creating the drug habits? Mediocre white people rise all the time, especially on the backs of rich parents, but his own examples are showing that you have to be the absolute best at whatever it is you are doing to be able to rise up.

While I will fight a whole lot of what Ben Carson says as the head of Housing and Urban Development (how being one of the world's best neurosurgeons qualifies you to head HUD, a position with absolutely no crossover, is still beyond me) you should definitely read up on his story, it is super impressive. But to try and claim that the system wasn't against a black family during the 1950s seems more than just a little ridiculous.

AMEN! 7:53

Amen! We are not wrestling against flesh and blood! The verse mentioned is Ephesians 6:12 (NRSV):

AMEN! The battle is not against individual people, but against the systems that uphold them, and the evils of racism and white supremacy that are still all to present in our world today. And it's not just about policing, it's about housing, and education, and jobs, and tackling these types of systemic evils wherever they might show their head. This is exactly what the BLM is arguing. It's time for us as one people to stand against the powers of this dark world and act and demand justice. Because it's not a struggle against individuals, but a struggle against rulers, and authorities, and powers that are against the Kingdom of God. A kingdom that we are called to usher in, that we are called to be the hands and feet for, because every week we pray that this kingdom come, and that it be on earth as it is in heaven!

And let's make damn sure that we attack those powers and principalities within the halls of power and authority because as citizens of God's kingdom we act justly! And we love mercy! And we walk humbly with God.

Amen, Amen, Amen! ~8:40ish

OOOOOOoooo I love this! He should have started with this! I'll close my rant response with the same question. What have you done to make this world better? What are you going to do to make it "on earth as it is in heaven"? How are you using your time and talents to address the rulers and authorities and forces that are against the kingdom of God and justice and peace? It's not enough to just be not for the forces of darkness that we see in our world, but we have to engage in the struggle and the wrestling and the hard work to address the systemic issues at work in our world!

Chemo is Done!

I've been done with my 12 weeks of intense chemo for about 4 weeks now. Side effects are pretty much gone and I'm feeling a lot better. I'm able to get out and about by myself and am getting back into the swing of being able to lead a normal life, which is good because I've been going insane! 3 months is a long time to feel like crap and not be my normal randomly independent self.

Not Done Yet

So after all the chemo my latest scan showed a lot of improvement, but a couple of oddities that my doctor wasn't sure what to think about so he sent me to the Indiana University Hosptial down in Indianapolis, which has the best team in the world for my type of cancer. The short version from seeing them is I need a surgery to remove a bunch of lymph nodes in my abdomen. There's also a 5% chance that after I recover from the surgery I'll need to do an additional 2 rounds of chemo. So I have the potential of another 4-14 weeks of cancer crap and recovery to deal with. I really don't want to do more chemo and be out for that much longer.

Still Eventually Gonna Be Fine

When I started telling people about my cancer diagnosis I would always say that in the long run I'll be fine, it's just going to suck getting there. Thanksfully that hasn't changed. My new specialist team feels the same way and is still saying that there's a 98% chance that we still totally slay this thing. That's as close to a sure thing as you're going to get when you're talking about things that require surgery.

At this point I'm more concerned about my sanity lasting through the end of this than I am about physically getting through it. There's only so many times someone can watch "We're the Millers" on Comedy Central before he cracks.

DNS updates are done, time to get back to something at least somewhat productive. Just remember, live your life with no ragrets.

Treatment Plan

So my treatment plan involves 3 or 4, 3 week cycles, which breaks down like so.

That first week I get a combination of 3 meds on Monday, and 2 meds the remaining days. On my 1(ish) hours days on the "off" weeks I only get one med (the extra Monday med) which really could only take 15 minutes or so, but we'll probably throw in a bag of hydration to help keep me feeling well.

Chemo - The Prequel

Last week (the week before treatment) sucked. Not like cancer wise, just in general. What you don't realize about starting chemo is all of the additional appointments that go into actually starting it. Last week I had 2 different appointments every day except Thursday (which just had 1) so it was crazy busy, running all over the place to get different things taken care of.

I hated it.

In a strange way I have been actually looking forward to starting chemo this week because I just have to be in one location doing one thing instead of constantly running around town. Talk to me in a couple of days when all the meds have done their thing and I'm sure I'll be singing a different tune, but for now that still stands.

Chemo

So what you don't realize until you or someone you know does it, it takes a while for you to get all of the shitty effects of chemo, so day 1 chemo is totally fine. I chatted with the nurse and everybody around me — tried to figure out if my chemo-neighbor knew my parents — watched some Price is Right (which I'm looking forward to for the duration of treatment), did some work, walked around, got some cafe food, yada yada yada.

I did meet a water polo ref (Mr. Lubbers) who was visiting a patient kitty-corner from me and he saw the water polo shirt I happened to be wearing and before I said anything to him he snagged me to say hi. He's an insanely nice guy, great guy really. He's so nice that now I'm angry that I can't be angry and yell if he makes a call I disagree with (or at least as angry).

It's so much easier when you can treat refs as inanimate objects, but nooooo... now I know one of them and he's super nice so now I have to do the right thing and admit their all human and treat them with the respect that they deserve. Dang it. :)

Don't Forget to Vote

Well, I think I've been up enough to be able to tricky my body back to thinking it's time for bed and not just a nap. But before I go, don't forget to vote tomorrow. I would obviously (if you follow me elsewhere) wish for you to not vote for Trump, and would be-grudgingly hope you would vote of Hillary, a large part of that is the future of my health care. Now that I have cancer not being able to be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition is a big thing. Hillary wants to keep that provision, Trump wants to do away with it (and assumes the competition that would happen from removing state lines would take care of it, but you know ass u me).

But I also don't want to turn this into a political flame war, just go vote for whoever you want. I have cancer and am waking up early to get to the polls before my 6 hour treatment so whatever excuse you might try and use probably sucks.

Social Media Plugs

I'll try to make these kind of updates a semi-regular thing, but you can also hit me up on social media for smaller on-the-go updates, so look me up on whatever platforms you're on. I'll also eventually do an email notification for this blog so you can stay up that way, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Someone recently posted an article from The Gospal Coalition entitled 40 Questions for Christians Now Waiving Raibow Flags. I don't own a rainbow flag, but if you have read this blog, or had conversations with me about it, you'd know I metaphorically do, so I figured I might as well give it a shot.

As the article is obviously based from a Christian perspective I will try my best to leave out the legal side of things (expect from the obviously legal sided questions). But let me state up front, even if there was absolutely no question amongst Christians that same sex marriage is morally wrong, that means nothing when it comes to the law.

1. How long have you believed that gay marriage is something to be celebrated?

For me it was fairly early on in the marraige equality debate when I started looking into things and wrestling with the topic. I can't say that there was a time that I didn't think it should be celebrated and I had this amazing shift. There was a time where I didn't think about it, and then I started wrestling with the questions which has lead me to believe it should be celebrated.

2. What Bible verses led you to change your mind?

I don't know that there were any particular verses that I can pluck out and say "see!" But I'm completely ok with that since you can basically pull any verse out of context and make it for your specific argument (like slavery). But I think the biggest shift was recognizing the context in which the Bible was written versus the context we have now.

The Bible was written in a time when the understanding of sexuality was vastly different. I'll spare the long details since this is only question 2, but one of the biggest was everyone was believed to be born straight, and any act outside of that was abnormal. We now have overwhelming evidence showing that assumption is wrong. So now we have to join in the historical struggle of incorporating a new understanding of the world we live in into our faith tradition. It's much like when we realized that the world wasn't flat, nor the center of the universe, or the big bang, or evolution. Some people will reject that new understanding, while others will not. I'm obviously one of the latter.

Having said all of that, there's some interesting paralells that I'm exploring related to eunuchs talked about in Acts and Isaiah and their inclusion in the kingdom.

3. How would you make a positive case from Scripture that sexual activity between two persons of the same sex is a blessing to be celebrated?

The same way anyone would with opposite sex couples.

4. What verses would you use to show that a marriage between two persons of the same sex can adequately depict Christ and the church?

This is a fairly loaded question, couched in a patriarchal understanding of society where the men are supposed to be the leaders and the women are supposed to be submissive to their man. That's the understanding this question is getting at. With two guys, who leads and who is submissive? I'm not sure that the traditional understanding is all that great.

But, a picture where you are so deeply in love with each other that you'd lay down your life for the other, where you are fully known and perfectly loved, where you are naked and feel no shame, that's a much better picture and I think better depicts Christ and the church. And none of that is gender exclusive.

5. Do you think Jesus would have been okay with homosexual behavior between consenting adults in a committed relationship?

Dang, home boy really wanted to get to 40 with this filler question. Thanks Purpose Driven Life...

6. If so, why did he reassert the Genesis definition of marriage as being one man and one woman?

Because he was a good Jewish Rabbi who quoted a lot of scripture.

Like I talked about in my answer to question #2, that was the culture at the time. Should we forgo every piece of information we've learned in the past few millenia and only live life with the scientific information Jesus had available to him?

While we're on the topic of Matthew 19, there's a few things that are really sticky about this verse.

First, this section is clearly about divorce. There's absolutely no way around that. Trying to use it in this context may be a bit of a stretch. But regardless, why aren't we trying to make divorce illegal unless you can prove unfaithfulness? It's quite clear, right there in black and white, no having to read anything into it like you have to do with SSM.

Second, what about the wife? Reading the passage it's quite clear that the woman gets no say, even in the case of sexual immorality. So it's fine if the husband cheats on his wife, but if a wife cheats on her husband she's gone.

Lets say we ignore the part about women not being able to divorce their husbands. What about if the husband is beating the wife? Are we supposed to say "Sorry, Jesus didn't say domestic violence was grounds for a divorce"?

Hopefully you think those points are absurd, because that's exactly my point. God's called us further in his understanding of him. That was a major point of this passage. Jesus told these people that Moses allowed them to divorce their wives because they weren't yet ready for where God was taking them. I talk about this more here, so I'll leave this point at that.

The bigger question contained in this passage stems from "Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Can we say for sure that our LGBT brothers and sisters weren't joined together by God, and that we're now trying to seperate them? That's a pretty big question to wrestle with.

7. When Jesus spoke against porneia what sins do you think he was forbidding?

Dang, didn't think I was going to need a greek dictionary for this. Hold on, I'm firing up e-Sword.

Ok, here's a quick run down of what I could find in it's 26 occurances:

• Matthew uses it in an adulturous way. It's actually what is used in the verse above as the only justification for a man divorcing his wife. It's also translated as fornications (presumably outside of marriage), and Young's Literal Translation has it translated as "whoredoms" which is kind of great.
• John uses it once to talk about illegitimate children (We of whoredom have not been born - ha!)
• Acts includes it in lists about idoltry and the Common English Version translates it as "any terrible sexual sin"
• Corinthians expressly adds having sex with your father's wife (gross), but mostly uses it in a generic term. Although an interesting bit is when it says because of this whoredom everyone should be married. (Sorry I'm like a middle school boy giggling about that translation).
• Here's a interesting plot twist - in Galations it's included in a list with adultry, so apparently it's more than just adultry.
• The rest of the uses (all in the New Testament) seem to be general sexual stuff

Ok, a little bit more boned up (te he he). So instead of making a super long list of deviant sexual acts, like the question technically calls for [insert reference to Clerks 2 here], let's just go with sexual deviancy. I don't think I'd put sex between two loving and committed people, regardless of their gender, on that list.

8. If some homosexual behavior is acceptable, how do you understand the sinful “exchange” Paul highlights in Romans 1?

Here's the passage this verse is talking about:

Ok, I'm going to give the short version here because the long version includes definitions and greek words and the like. So short version:

This operates with the understanding that everyone is straight. People exchanging their natural relationships for another. 2,000 years later the science shows that people are born homosexual. To say it another way, it's their nature. For this passage to make any sense you have to have a change. For straight people, their change would be homosexual activities. For gay people it would be heterosexual activities. So maybe the sin we should be questioning is the gay people who feel forced into heterosexual relationships.

I know a fair amount of LGBT people, or at least LG people, and they are definitely not full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice; nor any of the other things mentioned in the passage.

9. Do you believe that passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and Revelation 21:8 teach that sexual immorality can keep you out of heaven?

10. What sexual sins do you think they were referring to?

Since #10 is a follow up to #9 I'm going to tackle them as one since the answer for 9 dips into 10.

I think the initial question is quite flawed in that I don't think Jesus cared to much about getting into heaven. Everything he talked had a feeling of the kingdom here at hand. You don't inherit the something when you die, you inherit it when the owner dies. Jesus died, so we get the kingdom here and now. I would argue that our job as Christians isn't to get people into heaven when they die, it's to get people into the present reality of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, in the here and now.

But anyway, to the heart of the question:

So, do these verses teach that sexual sins can keep you from being an active participant in the Kingdom of Heaven? Obviously yes. Plantinga's definition of sin is "a culpable disturbance of shalom", so any disturbance of shalom - the peace of God - keeps up from experiencing the kingdom, which is in it's very nature shalom.

I think my previous answers, regarding the cultural and scientific understanding talked about in #2, and the the answer to #7 about the sexual deviancy apply here.

The phrase "men who have sex with men", which I highlighted in Corinthians, is a single word "arsenokoitēs" and was originally translated in the KJV as "defilers of themselves with mankind" which is a kind of awkard phrase. It's only used twice in the entire Bible, so it's not very common.

I've heard (but not researched deeper, so take it as such) that it was a fairly uncommon word in general and only ever really shows up a handful of times in ancient documents, and its usually in long lists of sins like this, which make its meaning hard to pin down. Although it happens to show up a lot in business type writing where it's like sleeping with someone to gain something in a business deal. Like male prostituion.

But, lets completely ignore that for now and continue within the framework that it just means homosexuals. Since our modern understanding of sexuality is so vastly different it's like comparing apple's and oranges. So for this one I'll fall back to the idea of committed loving relationship = good, whoredom = bad.

Regarding the Revelations passage, this one is a bit more cut and dry. The word the NIV translates as sexually immoral is the word "pornos", a singluar noun. Here's the definitions from Thayer's Greek Dictionary (I'm skipping Strong's since it's basically the same just structured really wierdly).

Pornos

a man who prostitutes his body to another’s lust for hire

a male prositute

a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse, a fornicator

So a male prostitue. Which raises interesting questions about "defilers of themselves with mankind" thought above. And yes, I think selling yourself (regardless of gender of either participant) will keep you from properly experiencing God's shalom.

11. As you think about the long history of the church and the near universal disapproval of same-sex sexual activity, what do you think you understand about the Bible that Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Luther failed to grasp?

Science, and that we're talking about loving committeed people not people of whoredom. (Sorry, I can't help using that word now).

12. What arguments would you use to explain to Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America that their understanding of homosexuality is biblically incorrect and your new understanding of homosexuality is not culturally conditioned?

I think the entire rejection of homosexuals as some sort of deviancy is culturally conditioned from biblical times, so we're starting at a different point of reference. But ignoring that here's what my game plan would be, which is probably full of wholes since I know very little about the church in those areas, and their different cultures and practices.

I would probably start off making the point about God is taking us somewhere, like I did in #6 and the post I linked to there. I would talk about women's rights (if they have them there) or any of the probably numerous ways within their own culture that God has pulled them into something better.

13. Do you think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were motivated by personal animus and bigotry when they, for almost all of their lives, defined marriage as a covenant relationship between one man and one woman?

The optimist in me says they were probably like me in my answer to #1, however the pesimist in my says their politicans and just went along with whatever could get them elected at the time. However, Bernie Sanders has a very long track record of fighting for marriage equality.

14. Do you think children do best with a mother and a father?

I think they do best when they are surronded by positive figures of both sexes invested in them. Mother and father may be best, but by no means the only way. Quick shout out to my deceased Grandpa especially, and also my Young Life leaders throughout the years. Thanks Tex, Keith, Dave, Tom, and Pat!

15. If not, what research would you point to in support of that conclusion?

N/A

16. If yes, does the church or the state have any role to play in promoting or privileging the arrangement that puts children with a mom and a dad?

Yes, but not just biological parents. It has a huge responsibility to the hundreds of thousands of children that are wards of the state, and in need of a family. Since straight couples aren't filling that demand, and the one study suggesting being raised within a same sex family was a detriment to children has been discredited, its in the interest of the state to privilege the same sex house hold as well. Lest we forget, the state is also in the job of promoting equality and justice, apart from what any religion says.

There's also numerous other issues with trying to promote marriage as strictly about child rearring. What about people who are infertile, like if an old widower gets remarried well in their years? Or what about a couple who decides they don't want to have children? Should we be barring them from marriage?

17. Does the end and purpose of marriage point to something more than an adult’s emotional and sexual fulfillment?

Is that all there is to it? No, but a quick glance at Song of Solomon shows that's a pretty big part of it. There's also what was previously discussed about it being a picture of Christ and the Church, and all that. I remember reading somewhere, although I'm now drawing a blank, that marriage creates more love. When you're around two people deeply in love, deeply committed to each other, that you can't help but be changed by that, because it's a picture of God's love for all of us.

There's also a whole slew of economic things here that I won't dive into other than to say that the pooling of resources is incredibly good for the economy.

18. How would you define marriage?

Off the top of my head, lets go with the binding together of two people.

19. Do you think close family members should be allowed to get married?

No, as there is scientific evidence that shows this leads to genetic abnormalities within offspring.

20. Should marriage be limited to only two people?

Within the church, yes. From the legal stand point of the state, untill there is evidence that shows an alternate arrangement is not harmful to the parties involved, also yes. However, so far we have evidence that polygimist marriage (which let's not forget is a form of biblical marriage) is harmful to the different parties involved.

21. On what basis, if any, would you prevent consenting adults of any relation and of any number from getting married?

Looks like I jumped the gun in my previous answer. When there's evidence and professional consencus that it would be harmful to the parties involved.

22. Should there be an age requirement in this country for obtaining a marriage license?

Yeah, it's a legal contract.

23. Does equality entail that anyone wanting to be married should be able to have any meaningful relationship defined as marriage?

No, but the qualifier isn't are you gay.

24. If not, why not?

Because then I could try to marry my dog. But since my dog is unable to enter into a legal contract, cause he's a dog, it's not marriage, I just love him a lot. And he either loves me a lot or loves the fact that I give him treats a lot. Here's a handy little guide that's been floating around the internet for a few years now.

25. Should your brothers and sisters in Christ who disagree with homosexual practice be allowed to exercise their religious beliefs without fear of punishment, retribution, or coercion?

So long as they don't infringe on other people's rights absolutely.

26. Will you speak up for your fellow Christians when their jobs, their accreditation, their reputation, and their freedoms are threatened because of this issue?

Depends on the situation, maybe, but then again maybe not. Like I said, depends on the situation. In America we are free to express our beliefs, we are not free from the repercussions from them (as long as they are legal).

Let me put it like this. If I went into work every day and refused to do what my boss told me to do because she was a woman, and I firmly believed the biblical teaching that women shouldn't have authority over men, I should be fired because I'm not doing my job. I should also get a reputation from it that would make people not want to hire me because of it.

Let's say my doctor is board certified, because he is, and hopefully yours is too. If my doctor, from his firmly held religious beliefs, decides he's done with modern medicine and refuses to perscribe me life saving treatments and instead decides only to pray for me and annoint me with oils, then his certification should be revoked and he shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.

Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1974 with a special printing of version II. We're now on version 5. If a pyschiatrist or psychologist is pushing the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder because of their religion, the American Psychiatric Association should revoke their accreditation.

If I go into work every day and told everyone they're going to burn in hell for eternity, I should be fired for creating a hostile work environment. Or if that belief is strongly opposed to the organization I'm working at and it effects my performance or the reputation of the organization, then I should be fired.

If, however, I spend my days realizing that every interaction is an opportunity to put God's love on display, and I befriend people who may disagree with me, and within that friendship we have a discussion where we discuss our disagreements in a loving manner, without hostility or ill will, then no I should not be fired, and I would stick up for that.

27. Will you speak out against shaming and bullying of all kinds, whether against gays and lesbians or against Evangelicals and Catholics?

I'd like to say yes, but in all honesty probably not. You definitely won't find me speaking out against shaming of the Westboro Baptist Chruch. But I would speak up if they got fire-bombed or something. Just trying to keep it .

28. Since the evangelical church has often failed to take unbiblical divorces and other sexual sins seriously, what steps will you take to ensure that gay marriages are healthy and accord with Scriptural principles?

Well, how about we start by taking the "gay" out of that sentence? That seems like a pretty solid first step.

29. Should gay couples in open relationships be subject to church discipline?

If they're a member of that church, then sure. As long as they are also free to leave that church and worship elsewhere.

30. Is it a sin for LGBT persons to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage?

I don't see why it wouldn't be. Unless of course some people were trying to force their own beliefs on them and not allow them to be married. Then I would have to go with a deeply committed relationship that would be considered marriage had someone not removed that right from them.

31. What will open and affirming churches do to speak prophetically against divorce, fornication, pornography, and adultery wherever they are found?

Great question, but how about we take the "open and affirming" out of that sentence? That seems like a pretty solid first step.

32.

Sorry, I had to make that one a meme. I know it's not technically the proper use of it, but whatever.

I guess I would say it's this crazy thing that makes you feel imcomplete with the object of that love, like finding a piece of yourself in another. It's a willingness to pour yourself out for another. It's a strange force that pulls us to act against our own self interests for the betterment of another. It's something that is bigger than words, defies definitions, and therefore any definition someone gives comes up woefully short (just like this one).

33. What verses would you use to establish that definition?

I wasn't specifically thinking of bible verses when I wrote that little passage, but there's definitely influences of John 3:16, which kind of sums up the whole Jesus story. The marriage verses about mutual submission, becoming one, etc. Maybe even that great chunk in John where he says God is love.

Also Corinthians because, its Corinthians.

34. How should obedience to God’s commands shape our understanding of love?

That's part of the giving of yourself, the pouring yourself out. If you love God you naturally end up following the commands out of that.

35. Do you believe it is possible to love someone and disagree with important decisions they make?

Yes. However, the approach of rejection and outlawing things solely because we disagree with it is far from the picture of the God who loves us enough to give us free will.

36. If supporting gay marriage is a change for you, has anything else changed in your understanding of faith?

Not really a change.

37. As an evangelical, how has your support for gay marriage helped you become more passionate about traditional evangelical distinctives like a focus on being born again, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ on the cross, the total trustworthiness of the Bible, and the urgent need to evangelize the lost?

I'm not quite sure how to answer this. I don't know that I would defend all of those points, and the insane amount of baggage that comes along with them. I guess I'm not a traditional evangelical. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

But it has helped me become more passionate about the things I see Jesus talk about and do. Things like standing up for those made to be an outcast, giving a voice to those without one, extending grace and love to all, and calling others to join in the kingdom (I'm still with the evangelizing part).

38. What open and affirming churches would you point to where people are being converted to orthodox Christianity, sinners are being warned of judgment and called to repentance, and missionaries are being sent out to plant churches among unreached peoples?

The United Church of Christ.

39. Do you hope to be more committed to the church, more committed to Christ, and more committed to the Scriptures in the years ahead?

Of course.

40. When Paul at the end of Romans 1 rebukes “those who practice such things” and those who “give approval to those who practice them,” what sins do you think he has in mind?

We already taked about this in question #8.

Ok, so that turned into a much bigger ordeal than I had expected it to. Hopefully my thoughts weren't too all over the place and I managed to present my answers in a clear and logical manner.

Technical side note, if you feel like linking directly to a specific question copy the url and add #the_number to the end, where the_number is the number of the question. So http://aronduby.com/40-answers-from-a-christian-metaphorically-waiving-a-rainbow-flag/#8 to jump directly to 8.

header image from the same article I'm responding to, although I'm not sure where they got it.

I'm struggling to figure out where to even start with this post. There's so much terribly wrong with this race-driven terrorist attack that took place this week in Charleston South Carolina, but for now I'm going to focus on one thing — white privilege.

White kid walks into a black church, opens fire and kills 9 people. Somehow a debate ensues about if this as an act of terrorism. Let's say the white kid was muslim, do we really think there would be a debate? I've also heard news outlets, and those covered by them, trying to ignore the long history of attacks on black churches and instead try to paint this as the ongoing war on Christianity. Did they miss the fact that this kid was wearing the flags of two brutal governments known for their terrible attrocities against their black brothers and sisters?

Even worse than all of that was the instant jump we made to mental illness. People like to talk like he's just one random wacko who snapped. We've even found out that he had been telling his closest friends that he was going to do something like this AND NO ONE DID ANYTHING!

But yet the debate rages about was this racism, was this terrorism, was this just some crazy person? All of this questioning is steeped in white privilege. My plan was to try and put some coherent thoughts together to explain myself, but then I realized I already did, 8 and a half years ago. So instead of trying to focus my currently jumbled mind enough to be coherent, here's what I wrote back then. It's obviously dated, but I think it unfortunately holds just as true today as it did back then. Also, you should go read all of the articles that Vox.com has published about the Charleston shooting.

White Privilege

Feb 15, 2007

The following was written as a response to a post by a Xanga friend, Reverend Jeremy who rocks the internet handle APuritainMindset. It might help to read it [it's from Xanaga, it doesn't exist anymore]. I'll post the quote he started off with which lead to my thoughts, for his thoughts on the whole thing (which might give a greater context to my words) you'll have to read his post.

Were five people killed in Salt Lake City this week because of Islamofascism? Don’t count on Big Media to answer that question. Here is what we know as of now. According to witnesses, an 18-year-old gunman calmly walked into a Utah shopping mall and started randomly killing customers. Thankfully, an off-duty police officer was able to slow him down, and the assailant was eventually killed in a shoot-out with Salt Lake City police. Early press reports only gave his age, but no name. ABC reported the story last night, but repeatedly said little was known about the shooter. Today, several Utah papers are reporting that the killer’s name was Sulejmen Talovic, and he was a Bosnian Muslim refugee.

Don’t expect to hear much more. Big Media has no interest in pursuing these sorts of cases. When a Muslim man intentionally mows people down in San Francisco with his SUV, the headline is: “SUV Driver Kills Pedestrians.” When a Muslim assailant bursts into a Jewish community center in Seattle and brutally murdered a Jewish woman and wounded five more, he is described as “sick,” and the story vanishes. When an Iranian college student tried to turn a rented SUV into a weapon of mass destruction, the media reported, “9 Injured by SUV at UNC-Chapel Hill.” We deserve to know whether Sulejmen Talovic was another example of “Sudden Jihad Syndrome,” but don’t hold your breath waiting for the facts.

The quoted text from Mr.Bauer wreaks of white privilege. I wonder if Mr.Bauer would be asking the same questions if it had been a white conservative that had gone on a killing spree. Or how about asking the same questions every time a crime is committed by any white man. After all, Timothy McVeigh was white and how many people did he kill in his terror attack? Or how about Gale Nettles, another white man who believed he was working with Al Qaeda (ended up being undercover feds) to blow up a federal building in Chicago last year [2006]. Although I've found many people outside of chicago don't even know who Gale Nettles is. Or what about Eric Rudolph, who is best known for his bombing of the Olympic Games in Atlanta who also bombed abortion clinics and gay and lesbian night clubs. He also professes to be a christian. So why aren't we worrying about white christians being terrorists? Or how about the "trench coat mafia", why not assume and worry about any white teenage male being a terrorist?

Its because those whites and christians are us. We know that not all white people are terrorist because we're not a terrorist. But as soon as someone outside of our group does some hideous evil we start thinking that persons a terrorist. Hello white privilege. Especially in the case of Gale Nettles. That case quickly disappeared from the public eye, he was given a fair trail and got the sentence he deserved. If Gale Nettles had been anything but white, he'd be spending God knows how long at Gitmo Bay as an Enemy Combatant without any due process. The system seems to work, as long as you look like the majority.

A Few Resources

Eric Rudolph

• Atlanta Olympic bombing suspect arrested — one of the literally hundreds of CNN stories about him
• Eric and the Islamists — an interesting excerpt from the book "Hunting Eric Rudolph" comparing the similarities between the "Christian Identity" (the group Rudolph belonged to) and "Islamic Fundamentalist". Can't say I agree with everything, I'm not educated on the "Christian Identity" movement enough to say one way or another. Just an interesting read.

Gale Nettles

• Chicago man arrested in alleged bomb plot — CNN
• "Criminal" White Terrorist in Chicago Vs. Non-White "Enemy Combatants" - Music For Americans: music and other social causes short blurb dead link

Tim Wise a speaker/author on White Privilege

• http://timwise.org/ - I've been reading his book called White Like Me, and excellent read, pick up a copy like right now.

I'm assuming nothing is needed for Timothy McVeigh or the "Trench Coat Mafia". If you don't know just Google it.

header image from EmanuelAMEChruch.org

Just then a religion scholar stood up with a question to test Jesus. “Teacher, what do I need to do to get eternal life?”

He answered, “What’s written in God’s Law? How do you interpret it?”

He said, “That you love the Lord your God with all your passion and prayer and muscle and intelligence—and that you love your neighbor as well as you do yourself.”

“Good answer!” said Jesus. “Do it and you’ll live.”

Looking for a loophole, he asked, “And just how would you define ‘neighbor’?”

Jesus answered by telling a story. “There was once a man traveling through Detroit. On the way he was attacked by robbers. They took his clothes, beat him up, and went off leaving him half-dead. Luckily, a deacon from the local church was on his way down the same road, but when he saw him he angled across to the other side. Then a the pastor showed up; he also avoided the injured man.

“A Muslim traveling the road came on him. When he saw the man’s condition, his heart went out to him. He gave him first aid, disinfecting and bandaging his wounds. Then he lifted him onto his donkey, led him to an inn, and made him comfortable. In the morning he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take good care of him. If it costs any more, put it on my bill—I’ll pay you on my way back.’

“What do you think? Which of the three became a neighbor to the man attacked by robbers?”

“The one who treated him kindly,” the religion scholar responded.

Jesus said, “Go and do the same.”

This struck me today on the way home from a swim meet (Go Eagles!). It seems to be quite fitting given the rampant islamophobia that's happening now a days and the recent #MuslimLivesMatter.

For some background and thoughts on this story check out my post The Dead Body on the Side of the Road which walks through some of the historical aspects and how it applies today.

tail -r file_path | more

A lot of this comes from Phil Chen's Quick and Dirty How to Write an Init Script. I've changed where necessary for this specific use case.

First some fine print: this works on my setup running CentOS 6.5 with NodeJS v0.10.2 and Forever v.0.11.1. Your individual mileage may (and lets be honest probably will) vary. This is also use at your own risk, no guarantee and all that stuff.

I'm assuming you are already familiar with node, and forever, and already have all that installed. I'm also assuming you are doing all of this as root.

Do Some Planning

The first step is to do a little bit of planning to figure out where in the start order our scripts need to be started. So do the following to find out what is getting started now:

cd /etc/rc.d/rc3.d  
ls -l  

The output from that will list all of the init scripts set to run at run level 3 (more on the level thing later). But you'll see a lot of files listed that all start with a K or S followed by a number and then a name. Items that start with K aren't ran, while items with an S are. The number after that is the order that it starts in, and and then finally the name of the actual script (which also shows its a symlink to the script in /etc/init.d folder) Here's a sample from mine:

The node scripts I'm going to be booting use mysql and redis, so they need to be started after those. Since I see mysqld starts at 64 and redis-server starts at 85 I have to choose a number higher than that, say 86.

The Init Script

So now that we know where in the order we want our init script to run, lets create the actual script:

#!/bin/sh
#
# Note runlevel 2345, 86 is the Start order and 85 is the Stop order
#
# chkconfig: 2345 86 85
# description: Description of the Service
#
# Below is the source function library, leave it be
. /etc/init.d/functions

# result of whereis forever or whereis node
export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin  
# result of whereis node_modules
export NODE_PATH=$NODE_PATH:/usr/local/lib/node_modules


start(){  
        forever start PATH_TO_NODE_SCRIPT
}

stop(){  
        forever stop PATH_TO_NODE_SCRIPT
}

restart(){  
        forever restart PATH_TO_NODE_SCRIPT
}

case "$1" in  
        start)
                echo "Start service SERVICE_NAME"
                start
                ;;
        stop)
                echo "Stop service SERVICE_NAME"
                stop
                ;;
        restart)
                echo "Restart service SERVICE_NAME"
                restart
                ;;
        *)
                echo "Usage: $0 {start|stop|restart}"
                exit 1
                ;;
esac  

This script needs to reside in /etc/init.d/ and name it something recongizable. For me, the site that's using this gprl so I'm going to save this script as /etc/init.d/grpl. Lets break this script down a little bit.

The Comment at the top

Three very important things happen in the comments at the top, so don't delete them. The first is #!/bin/sh sets this up as a shell script, nothing new there.

# chkconfig: 2345 86 85 will be parsed by the chkconfig command we'll be using to add it to the startup. It means that we want this to run at Runlevels 2, 3, 4, and 5; it should be started at #86 (what we decided earlier on) and stopped at #85.

# description: Description of the Service is also needed and you should change "Description of the Service" to something meaningful, like "The node server handling the live updates for the GRPL site" for my example.

The line right after the last comment . /etc/init.d/functions just grabs some required library stuff, don't mess with it.

Run Levels

A quick second on the run level portion of that. The SysV Init setup lets you start different things depending on the mode the system was started. Single-user mode is level 1, multi-user is 3, and multi-user with gui is 5. 2 and 4 are used for custom modes. I went with 2345 mostly because that's what apache and mysql were set to do. You can learn more about this from CentOS SysV Init Runlevels

Exports

Node and Forever aren't within the path that this script uses to run. To get around that we extend a couple of path variables. Most likely the values provided will be correct, but here's how to check.

For the first line, export PATH=$PATH:/usr/local/bin, run the command whereis forever, if it doesn't show that it is in /usr/local/bin then change that to whatever folder it is in (making sure you don't also include the forver portion).

Do the same with the second line except substitute forever with node_modules. If you need to change it, this time do include the node_modules portion.

Forever

The next set of functions are where we actually run the forever commands that correspond to the function name. Replace PATH_TO_NODE_SCRIPT with the path to the node script you want to start. If you normally pass additional arguments to forever, just rewrite these lines to include those arguments. For example, using the following would start a default install of Ghost

NODE_ENV=production forever start /var/www/ghost/index.js  

Make sure your paths are absolute!

Service Name

The case statement that takes up the rest of the script checks if your trying to start, stop, or restart the script and calls the appropriate function. We could have skipped having the function calls and written our forever commands here, but this adds some future-proofing. Change SERVICE_NAME to whatever you named the file (in my example it is grpl). It's not required, but will be displayed on the screen and system logs.

Add Our Init Script

So now that we have our init script above saved as /etc/init.d/SERVICE_NAME we have to make it executable, so run the following:

cd /etc/init.d  
chmod a+x SERVICE_NAME  

Now that it's an executable script we just have to add it to the startup using the chkconfig command (man) by running the following:

chkconfig --add SERVICE_NAME  

this will parse the levels and order from the init script and add it in all of the proper locations. You can config it is added properly by running chkconfig to view a list of all the init scripts that are registered, along with their run levels. For my example I'll see a line like:

grpl            0:off   1:off   2:on    3:on    4:on    5:on    6:off  

since I was using grpl for SERVICE_NAME and set it to run on levels 2, 3, 4, and 5.

You can also cd /etc/rc.d/rc3.d/ and then ls -l to confirm that it was setup with the proper start order.

Voila!

Now you can reboot your system and that should be running as normal.

Let's start at the beginning.

When people would have been talking about the creation story it would have been drastically different than anything else around at the time. The gods in the Old Testament times were always somewhere else, on top of a mountain or in a huge temple, and the mortals were their play things. The only time they got involved in such lesser affairs was when someone made them happy so they blessed them, or someone made them angry so they cursed them, or just some random meddling for no reason.

But not the God in our creation story. This is a God who created humanity in his image. This is a God who walks with humans in the shade of the night. This is a God so intimately involved with humanity that everyone was naked and felt no shame. That's a massive step forward in how humanity understood its relationship with God.

Within that same timeframe people were organized into tribes. Tribes had one main purpose: protection; mostly from other not so friendly tribes, so your tribe can continue on. Tribes would frequently war with other tribes, so if you had a big tribe, with lots of virile young men, you had a good tribe. That meant you had people who could fight, and people who could procreate to keep your tribe alive. Everything about the tribe was inwardly focused.

But then God creates a tribe, and this tribe is different. God blesses this tribe, which wasn't a new thing. All tribes had gods who would bless them. But this tribe was blessed so that it could be a blessing to every other tribe. No longer were they to be about themselves, instead they were to go out and put God on display for the rest of the world. Another pull forward.

Let's say you're a farmer in those time. You recognize that you're completely dependent on things like the sun and rain to be able to provide food for your family. Unfortunately those things are completely out of your control, those are the things that the gods control. You want the gods to be happy with you so they'll give you just the right amount of sun and rain, not two much of one without the other. The way you make the gods happy with you is by a sacrifice, and the god's could demand whatever sacrifice they desired.

Since that was the understanding, it shouldn't come as a surprise that when God ordered Abraham to take Isaac up the mountain to sacrifice him Abraham obliged. That's what gods did, they demanded sacrifices, and you had better give to their exact whim otherwise you incur their wrath.

But again, this God is pulling his people further. This isn't a God who demands, this is a God who provides. This isn't a God who takes, it's a God who gives. And he gives to the point of his son taking the place of all sacrifices.

And since we've jumped to Jesus...

Jesus was constantly pulling people into a deeper understanding of God and what it means to be God's people.

Remember the time he was debating a religious expert about how to properly live the life of God, and Jesus tells him the only way he can do it is by loving the people he hates the most?

Or how about all of the "you have heard it said... but I say to you" in Matthew 5 where he takes the laws and customs they've established to live right with God to a whole new level.

Then there's the time he's talking about divorce with the experts of the law and he says the reason Moses permitted them to divorce their wife was because their hearts were hard. They weren't ready for where God was taking them yet, but they were then.

So do we stop there? Were the stories collected thousands of years ago the end, or is God still trying to take us to new places and understandings of him we weren't ready for before?

What about the slavery? It was quite easy to biblically defend slavery, and many people did. Even the papacy remained silent on the issue for many years. As late as 1866 (the same year that Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to protect the rights of African-Americans) the papacy declared that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law to for a slave to be sold, bought, or exchanged. Hundreds of years later, we look at that in disgust, and we understand that God has called us further.

Or how about women's rights? Moses and Jesus both brought their people further than they had been previously. Should we have stopped there, when women were just property, had few opportunities other than being a wife or prostitute, and couldn't speak or hold authority within the church? Should we understand women's suffrage as immoral and against God's will, or is that evidence that God is still active and pulling humanity further towards his kingdom?

The Talking Ass (KJV)

All of these remind me of the story of Balaam and his donkey.

Balaam is riding his donkey to meet with the king of Moab. Along the way God sends an angel with his sword drawn to block the path. Balaam fails to see the angel, but his donkey does, so the donkey changes the path to protect Balaam. Balaam beats the donkey until it's back on the path he set out, only to have it happen two more times. The third time the donkey speaks, and tells him of the angel blocking the path, and the angel reveals he would have killed Balaam had it not been for the donkey.

God's people had been on a path, a path initially laid out by God. But we'd staid on that path for too long, and missed the angel that God had sent to block it. Meanwhile the rest of the world was trying to get us onto the right path. Our initial response was to force the world back to the initial path, but once God uses the donkey to speak to us we recognize the angel.

But what about marriage equality? Is God pulling us forward to grant people born homosexual the same rights and dignities as those born heterosexual? Are we to recognize the same divine spark in them as we do ourselves? Unfortunately many within the church are choosing to say no, these brothers and sisters aren't deserving of equality, they don't have the same divine spark, and they aren't allowed to equally participate in God's kingdom. Meanwhile the donkey is veering off the path again.

Brothers and sisters, God is still speaking, he's still active in his work to bring all things to him. It's time we listen to the donkey and recognize the angel. We can no longer continue down the same path. It's time we stand up for the rights and dignities of our homosexual brothers and sisters who have had them refused, even when we have been the ones refusing. God is calling us to welcome them into full participation with the divine because there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor male and female, nor heterosexual or homosexual, for we are all one in Christ.

Just a quick biblical story and thought after reading so much about the migrant child issue facing our country. I have no real answers for that, just something that we should keep in mind.

The word being translated as stranger there is the greek word xenos and here's the definition according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament:

1. a foreigner, a stranger
   • alien (from a person or a thing)
   • without the knowledge of, without a share in
   • new, unheard of
2. one who receives and entertains another hospitably
   
   • with whom he stays or lodges, a host

I think we can safely rule out definition #2 since the "goats" didn't take them in they couldn't be counted as guests.

So the question is how do we make our immigration laws reflect that, especially for a projected 60,000+ unaccompanied children?

For more on the child imigration crisis check out 13 facts that help explain America's child-migrant crisis - on Vox.com. Actually, for information on anything go there.

header image from Sheep or Goat? Is that fair? from Just Thinking. I didn't read the content but the image is too good.

// external link selector
// $('a:external').addClass('external');
$.expr[':'].external = function(obj){
    return (obj.href != undefined)
        && (obj.href != '') 
        && !obj.href.match(/^mailto\:/)
        && (obj.hostname != location.hostname);
};