Responding to Supreme Court Ruling of Same-Sex Marriage

I have listened to many radio shows, seen talk shows, read books about, talked with others about, and pondered what it must be like to be a homosexual in modern society. I know it must be tough. I know it must be somewhat lonely. And I know it must feel like, to this group of marginalized people and those who empathize with them, that the Supreme Court decision is a triumph.

Well, I am not trying to take the wind out of anyone’s sails, but I must admit, as a fellow human being and as a Christian, I am concerned about people’s responses across the board (not critiquing, just concerned).

Therefore, I want to raise a few questions we should all think about in light of the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage. I think it oversimplifies the matter to evaluate whether this action is “good” or “bad.”

My first question is this: how will this change our society as a whole? I am curious whether society will become increasingly more accepting of homosexual couples or more prejudiced. Passing a law does not actually change the way that people think. It may, in fact, stir up more animosity between groups with differing views on the matter.

The second is this: as evangelical Christians are portrayed as the “bad guys” who “hate gays” (and my sincere apologies, as I know there are groups of people claiming to be evangelical Christians who do express hatred towards homosexual persons), will this group be targeted based on this stereotype and forced to “be more accepting” in increasingly severe legal measures? Or will they merely continue to have a declining reputation in the public eye?

The third is this: how will the evangelical church react to homosexual couples who might come through its doors? Can a homosexual become a Christian? If a homosexual says he or she is a Christian and they are not in a homosexual relationship due to religious convictions, can he or she become a member of the church or hold a position of spiritual authority? Or instead, will denominations either a) alienate homosexuals or b) endorse same-sex marriage?

Instead of voicing all my opinions and thoughts on the matter, I am interested in raising questions which I think are crucial at this juncture. The main point I am going for here is: how will we (being both Christians and non-Christians, being homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual persons) respond? We all share responsibility and have decisions to make at this point in time.

Why I am no Longer a Feminist

    When I was about 8 years old, I decided I wanted to try playing softball. I had never played a sport before, but I had seen my older sister play and wanted to give it a try. By accident, I gave my mother the form for baseball, not softball. I ended up on a team with all boys.
    To his credit, my coach sincerely tried to teach me to hit. If desire to succeed was all it took, I would have been hitting home runs. As it was, I was really quite terrible. The boys on my team were nice enough to me, but inevitably when I would get up to bat one of the basemen would holler to the pitcher, “strike her out, she’s just a girl!”
    “Just a girl” indeed! I had a heavy metal bat in my hand and all he had was a cloth glove to protect him! I tried to focus all my energy into hitting the ball, however, instead of laying out the insulting boys on the other team.
    As I went through school, and especially whenever I played sports, the fact that I was female never failed to make me feel I was second-rate. Even from some of my friends, who were also girls, came taunts of, “you punch like a girl.” Yes, occasionally I punched my friends, upon their request (don’t ask- middle school was a strange time).
    As a Christian, I would love to say that I found things to be different in church. This was not so. In my high school youth group, girls seemed to be more listened to and valued if they invested heavily in their appearance and acted like idiots. Sorry about the bluntness- I actually knew them to be much more intelligent than they let on, which is why I must say “acted.”
    Thus, by the time I reached college age I felt I had to become an object to be noticed. Of course, I rebelled. If I was supposed to be a made-up dummy who laughed at nothing like a fool and didn’t have any strong opinions, I countered this by seeking to be exactly the opposite. My views on issues involving gender, because of the unfair treatment of women by society from my personal experience, became quite skewed. I thought women should be allowed to do anything a man could do, and that more women should be trying to break gender stereotypes by being strong, opinionated leaders and world changers. I masqueraded as exactly that for at least a few years. I was also trying  to be that independent woman who didn’t need any man to help her. Ever.
    Allow me to pause to explain: I am merely stating how my original opinion was formed, not trying to justify it by these anecdotes. I actually say much of this to my shame now.
    In the midst of all this, however, I lost a few things. I lost my ability to respect men. Not completely, but at many points I trampled their opinions to prove that though I was a woman I could think things through well, too. The issue in my heart, and at the heart of feminism, is pride.
    At the same time, God was doing a great work in my heart. I had this nagging question to God--what does it mean to be a woman in His kingdom? I somehow knew I had got it wrong, I just wasn’t quite sure how.
    I knew to find the answer to my questions, I had to fight with my interpretation of the creation account. Why did God create a woman? How is she different from Adam? How is she the same as him? Is she, too, made in God’s image?
    The last question was the most crucial to answer. If I was not made in the image of God as well, then it didn’t seem to me that all the same rules which applied to “men” applied to me. Some wacky theologians even believe a woman can be saved only by being made into a man after she dies. But I digress.
    This brings me to my current thoughts on the matter. If Man was made to reflect God’s beauty, character, and glory, being made in His image, why did God not simply stop with Adam? He could have made him asexual.
    I have a curious interpretation of this matter. Please test what I say against scripture as a whole, and decide for yourself. Even so, this is what I offer: that God wanted Adam to reflect Him in his relational nature, and namely, in His ability to love. Thus, God created Eve from Adam, making her rightly to be loved as himself, as she formerly was a part of him!
    Eve’s purpose, as she is also made in the image of God, is to reflect a different kind of love. This is the love of submission--as Christ submitted to the Father, not in a natural inferiority of being but in a willing, loving, trusting, and mysteriously powerful way. The power of submission is the best way I know to fight the ill effects of pride on other human beings.
    When women allow men to exemplify the power and wisdom of Christ and attempt to exemplify Christ’s humility and submission, God is glorified in both genders. To be clear, this does not let men nor women off the hook for trying to imitate Christ’s full character, but I am proposing that perhaps each gender has been created to more naturally reflect certain aspects of Christ.
    The Fall has undoubtedly contributed to misuse of the above principles, where some men will abuse their position to “rule” her in a controlling or demeaning way. Likewise, some women’s desire will be “against” men. She will contradict him for the sake of contradicting him, or to remind him that she matters, too.  This does not just play out in marriage, but in society as well.
    So how has this changed my feminist stance? If women were created to reflect a different aspect of Christ’s character, we need to stop trying to a) do all the things men do--we were made from Man but not to reflect him and b) one up men all the time--this was not meant to be a “battle of the sexes,” but rather a partnership. I believe men and women can learn from each other, can help one another, and can reflect Christ together. The battle needs to end somewhere, and this woman is laying down her sword (which can be put to much better use elsewhere).
   

To Choose or not to Choose a Political Party...

Many Christians find it necessary to take a side in political debates. Many find it convenient to choose a party to help them define their political stance. I have asked myself whether it is both Biblical and rational to do so. Should Christians align themselves with a certain political party? What are some of the costs and benefits which come from this?

If Christians choose not to have any political stance to maintain an “inviting“ atmosphere, what ultimately  occurs is that everyone else voices their opinions and the “Christian voice” dies out in the public political sphere. This leads to public opinion being swayed by all the non-Christian voices. Theoretically, if this country were truly run as a democracy, public opinion would influence the law, and thus be important. It is important, however, inasmuch as it has the ability to bring about social change.

I therefore must conclude that Christians need to have political opinions. Informed ones, preferably. This would mean the onus is on Christians to figure out how their government is being run and think critically about issues of justice. I admit I have often found this a challenging task. Still, I believe there is a responsibility.

Should Christians side with a political party publicly? If a party advertises many values which the Christian holds, it may seem tempting. However, caution is advised. Aligning with a certain party tells others that you agree with most of its positions, some of which you may be unaware of. One should fully examine a political party before attaching oneself to it. One should find out what the party is actually doing and what their political enemies say about them. One should get to the root of one’s own political beliefs, asking if one holds a Biblical position or not. One should only choose a political party after having done the homework.

That being said, though I think it is necessary to have a voice about political and social issues, I do not find advocating a certain political party to be necessary. I think some Christians choose parties, and then candidates based on parties, sometimes relying solely on one issue. For example, if one is Pro-Life, as the Republican party is most well-known for their stance on this (though Libertarians certainly are too), one may choose to align with this party and then begin choosing candidates who are Republican. Some Republicans aren’t even Pro-Life!

I really don’t mean to sound condemning nor arrogant, so I apologize if I do. The point I am making is: don’t side with a political party for the sake of siding with a political party.

Personally, I grew up in a very Democratic household. I have always had a heart for the less fortunate, and the Democratic party was always painted as “having a heart.“ If asked when I was younger, I am sure I would have responded that Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents the United States had ever had.

I then had very Republican friends in High School and College. I began reading the newspapers and debating issues with friends. The more I debated, the more I found myself choosing a side that was neither Democratic nor Republican. I could make all my friends unhappy at once ;).

Now I am of a strong Libertarian persuasion, generally speaking. I know this only from taking numerous political quizzes and reading about the various parties. However,  I refuse to label myself as such or confine my vote to only Libertarian. Each item must be carefully inspected. I also refuse to dress in strange costumes to support Ron Paul, even though I voted for him. But I digress.

This does not mean I believe the Libertarian party is the “Christian party,” nor the idyllic party, for neither exist. I thus will not speak to a certain issue from a Libertarian standpoint. Instead, I want to speak from the platform of being a Christian. This does not mean all Christians have to agree with me, but my faith is primarily what will inform whatever position I assume.

Christians need to boldly make their faith inform their political opinions. They need to use reason to understand the broader implications of these opinions. They need to voice their opinions humbly, being willing to listen to others. And by the grace of God, we will be light and salt in this world.

The Need and Purpose of Social Services

I never set out to do social work. I never set out to teach. In fact, 2 years ago I probably would not have believed that I would be doing either. My heart was quite set on doing ministry in the church and through parachurch organizations. Now that I have found myself both working for a social organization as well as teaching, I want to share why the church needs to know about social services, and how social services need the church.

Social Services are not, and should not be, fully government-run organizations. In fact, the less the government has to do with social services, the better. People should be helping people, not the government. The fact remains, however, that many social services can neither start nor survive on donations. There are too many "causes" and various groups of people looking for money. People will give to cancer research before they will give to an organization helping the homeless. Don't get me wrong: cancer research is important, too. I am just saying that people seem less likely to give to help others in need.

As donations are in short supply, these organizations must apply for government grants. This is by no means ideal. Fortunately some organizations are able to remain somewhat independent (so long as they are not doing anything directly opposed to the government's interests) while still receiving some of these grants.

So why social services if it is so much trouble? Why not simply use existing independent organizations such as churches and community centers? I would aver that there is such a diverse range of needs, some of them requiring people who have been specifically trained in dealing with such social problems.

Let me give an example. On a trip to NYC in college I was able to learn about churches who gave meals to homeless people on the street, as well as investigate a facility for homeless Veterans who were dealing with PTSD and other problems from serving. While the churches had their heart in the right place by caring for the homeless, they were only able to provide these people with meals. They could not help them get jobs, apartments, etc. The social service organization for the Veterans, however, had a special program whereby Veterans had a number of meetings and tasks to accomplish which they would be rewarded for. They were given housing for a period of time and were provided with counselors, skills for getting and holding a job, etc.

What I am saying is that the church can work in small ways to lessen the hardships of others, but social services is a way to provide holistically for individuals in a way that demonstrates Christ-like love and is much more relationship-oriented than helping someone in passing.

The organization I currently work for has an open door to the Chinese community in Boston and cares for adults by teaching them both English and life skills. It provides a children's program and ministers to families alongside a Chinese church. The programs are offered at an affordable rate only because it is government subsidized. It would be ideal to be run on donations, but like I said, the money is hardly flowing in.

Social services are needed. There are many social problems that need to be addressed in practical ways. This is beginning to sound a little humanitarian...

I used to be somewhat of a humanitarian. Then I decided humans don't taste very good. But I digress. The problem with humanitarianism is that, at the end of the day, why should people care about helping other people? I get much more done by serving my own interests. Sometimes people don't even care if you are helping them. Sometimes you really don't get that warm and fuzzy feeling from helping others. Sometimes you just wish everyone you are trying to help would go away. I'm just being honest.

Social Services needs a higher purpose than simply helping other human beings and bettering society. Either wise, what are people draining themselves for, sacrificing higher-paying jobs for, etc.? The church provides a reason to help other people. God created and loves people. God wants people to love one another. This includes helping those who cannot help themselves, such as the poor, sick, those without familial support, etc. Jesus phrased this in a striking parable contrasting those who care for others and those who do not. He professed, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (NIV Holy Bible, Matthew 25:40).

Likewise, He said that those who did not "do" what they should have for "the least" did not do anything for him and face eternal punishment. This is something no one wants to hear. I realize this. But the point of what Jesus was saying was that it is not just good to help people, but it is eternally necessary, even when we don't feel like it. The challenge of the Christian life is to leave living a self-centered life behind. This does not mean all have to take part in social services. It does mean that the church needs to be aware of the needs in the surrounding communities and the world. It does mean that some social services should be getting more of the church's attention and financial backing. It means Christians should be proactive in seeking where God wants us to invest, instead of giving without discernment or not at all.

Zimmerman Not a Case of Institutional Racism

Discussions around the Zimmerman case appear to be thus: Zimmerman is racist against African Americans and this is yet another case of racial profiling, Zimmerman was simply an overly zealous wannabe cop who got carried away with the idea of carrying out justice, or Zimmerman was just waiting to attack someone and Trayvon happened to be in the vicinity. Some conclusions are more erroneous than others, but the overall reaction of the public seems to agree that Zimmerman should not have "got off."

In an effort to keep race out of the courtroom, the case was repeatedly brought back to the facts. A person is hard-put to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the incident occurred merely because of Trayvon's race. Racial profiling is an issue, don't get me wrong, and one that needs to be dealt with, but when dealing with a case such as this, which involves a civilian taking the law into his own hands, it is difficult to argue that the system is at fault. This seems to be a case of an individual's lapse in judgment.

Individual racism is a different thing from institutional racism. Both exist. Both are atrocious. Both are natural human tendencies. But individual racism is between two parties, and needs to be dealt with on that level. You can try to change the individual's mind with persuasive, anti-racist arguments, but you cannot force them not to be racist. Socially, you can discourage racist actions by punishing ones of a criminal nature, but as I said before, you may still be hard-put to prove that someone acted from racist motives unless the individual professed that he did.

Institutional racism, on the other hand, has to do not with individuals but with a system in which a person is living.

Imagine there were some ponies and horses living together in a pen. Imagine the owner started feeding the ponies better food, and occasionally letting them graze in a nicer part of the farm. Further imagine that because the ponies were getting a better brand of food (Pony-Delight instead of Pony-Feed, if you will), the horses were now given less food (of the same Horse-Sense Feed). Then the owner said he would give better food to all the ponies and horses who ran the fastest and learned all the ricks he wanted them to. What follows is that the ponies have an unfair advantage of having better food and can now run faster than the horses, who have been weakened by their slim diet. That is institutional racism, Charlie Brown. That is to say, so far as my understanding of it goes.

As a Christian, I am convicted that institutional racism is an injustice that needs to be addressed. Throughout the Old Testament God demonstrates He wants those who follow Him to look after those who could be neglected in society, such as widows and aliens. Jesus advocated caring for the poor, and not discriminating against those who were from other races (such as Samaritans). Not just to be nice, because Jesus wasn't just a "nice guy." It was to carry out the second greatest commandment he gave, to love others as ourselves.

 Sooo, back to racism. I honestly don't think individual racism can be eliminated. Ever. Because I believe human beings are naturally sinful, and historically racism is a sin that has continued to recur- whether between Eastern and Western societies, between Native Americans and settlers, and between African Americans and Caucasians. I say "between," because a racist mindset is often present in those being oppressed as well. The real problem lies in the system. We need to stop focusing on cases like that of Zimmerman and Trayvon, and instead think about why institutional racism exists. When we get to the why (who the horse owner is and what his motivation is), only then will we be able to move forward.

As a side note, I am not condoning Zimmerman's actions. But there were so many disparities in the accounts of the witnesses and not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. I would not want anyone to be locked away on only what seems to be true from an outside perspective.

Hernandez Case a Symptom of a Bigger Problem

I don't really follow sports. At all. Recently, however, the case of Aaron Hernandez, formerly of the New England Patriots, has been a hard story to miss. Some have claimed it was an example of a pro football player gone wrong. Some have claimed it just goes to show what money and fame can do to a person.

Fans have flocked to buy jerseys and sports' gear, which will soon be discontinued. This case has been likened to the OJ Simpson trial in the reactions of the public.

As I am not a sports fan, why should I be interested in this case? Good question. I wasn't really, not until someone on NPR this morning brought up one word: character. This person made the argument that these sports players are given three things: lots of money, free time, and (they phrased it differently, but) fame. In of themselves, these things are not corrupting. But the combination, perhaps, provides room for the foulest aspects of a person's character to be amplified.

Working together, these three can have the same effect as spoiling a child. A person may believe one can get whatever one wants, do what one pleases, and not have to deal with the consequences. This feeling of self-centered immunity can carry with it deadly consequences.

Good character is often formed in the face of opposition, in a human struggle against the odds. When the struggle is taken away, or a person is not allowed to struggle, that person may fail to develop proper human empathy for others, may not be able to emotionally handle opposition, etc. All of these could be contributing factors in this case.

I recognize that this is only a surface-level analysis, as I do not really understand the inner-workings of the NFL. Admittedly I have only been to a single Pre-Season Pats game at Gilette Stadium, and have a limited view of the sports world. But I do think players need to be challenged, not just rewarded. Who is keeping these players in check? Who is making sure that this case is not repeated? I don't have any solutions, just thoughts...

In conclusion, one may recall the Biblical account of Cain and Able. Cain presented perhaps a half-hearted offering to God, but Able presented one that God found pleasing. In anger, Cain plotted and murdered his brother out in a field. His motivation was not to earn God's favor anymore---he was reacting in anger to not getting what he wanted. His character had not been developed.

Still- he had a choice, as we always do. Character can also be formed in the decision-making process, if we will stop and contemplate before resorting to rash action. We can train ourselves, by the grace of God, to make decisions which we know to be the right thing to do (this, according to God's word, written in our human conscience).

Hernandez, if he has committed these murders, could have chosen, despite the above 3 influences, to decide to be a man of character. But--we still have a responsibility as a society to try to create better environments or checks for those we are expecting exemplary moral character from as role models.

Are the "Thought Police" Here?

As the world has followed the escape of one Edward Snowden, who revealed some of the underworkings  of a government agency called Prism, many have wondered if this is the beginning of the end of true liberty of thought and speech. In fact, sales of George Orwell's 1984 have risen, supposedly, a surprising 6000%.

The link between these two items is that, just as the US government has been designing systems to monitor telephone and internet communication, so in Orwell's novel the "Thought Police" watch all citizens, intervening whenever any "thought crime" is committed. Thought crime, in the novel, is individual thinking which is not in line with what the government wants people to think.

Is Snowden guilty of leaking classified information? Undoubtedly. But the bigger question is: why would someone put his own freedom at risk to reveal information about the government? If he was trying to alert terrorists, wouldn't he have chosen a more covert method? His motives appear to be a genuine attempt to preserve human rights insomuch as he has revealed information to multiple interested parties, including US, Chinese, and Russian citizens.

The United States government is responding by charging him with theft, converging of government property, and espionage.Other countries such as China, Russia, and apparently Iceland (?) are granting him partial or full asylum (partial being not surrendering him, but also not saying they are granting him asylum).

Besides the fact that world wars have begun over seemingly small matters such as this, why should we be concerned?

Why should I, as a citizen of the United States be concerned? If the US government is monitoring communication so closely, there is more room for manipulation and control. The more information a party has about a group of people, the more power that party has to control the thinking of said party. They could, like Orwell's thought police, get to the point where they decide who the enemies of the state are and order assassinations which are not legal, but cannot be traced back to them...this is also sounding like the Bourne series (excellent films, but once you've seen 1 you've seen them all...). So you decide. How much do you really want the government to know about you?

Okay, okay. So this is all just a little bit conspiracy theory sounding...but here is the connection to faith, as I set out to do this all through this blog:

Should I, as a Christian, be concerned? Well, we are admonished to fight for the freedom we have in Christ. Freedom from sin, first of all, in Jesus Christ. This means we are free to love and serve God.
Freedom from the Old Testament law, secondly, not as an excuse to sin but rather a freedom to be defined by the grace of Christ instead of a bunch of rules we follow out of obligation (Romans 6). We are to use our freedom to please God, not Man.

With this kind of freedom in mind, it cannot truly ever be stripped from us so long as we cling to the truth and refuse to yield to worldly pressures of conformity. But...it does make our job much harder when outside forces are waging war against us psychologically. I might argue that our government is already doing this, making people associate the "Right" with evangelical Christianity and the "Left" with liberal immorality. Beware how you are being influenced! We are called to be as "wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16). Just something to think about...I know many of my brothers and sisters are wise to what is happening. 

But back to Snowden...I am thankful for what he divulged. It is not very surprising, but the way that the situation is now being dealt with is very telling in what may be some underlying secrets our government does not want us to know. So be careful..."Big Brother is Watching You."

***A footnote: if you do not know me well, please understand that about 1/2 of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. I can't help it. It is very droll to be serious all the time...So please take this blog as such.