MID-AUGUST CONVERSATION

HEY, WAKE UP! I NEED TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING.

About something? Remember, I know what’s going on in your head. I live there, too. You’ve got yourself really worked up about what’s happening between the church and the world.

I DON’T KNOW IF IT’S FAIR TO SPEAK OF SOMETHING HAPPENING “BETWEEN” THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD. ISN’T IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO SPEAK OF IT AS SOMETHING HAPPENING IN THE CHURCH IN THE WORLD, NOT BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD?

Maybe. The almost two-thousand year history of the church is a story of constant conflict and compromise, of separation and reconciliation. What’s bugging you most about the conflict this time? Maybe we’d better focus this time on reconciliation.

FOR SOME TIME, I’VE BEEN TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT I THOUGHT AS A CHILD... ACTUALLY WHAT I THINK I WAS TAUGHT, AND WHAT I NOW THINK I KNOW TO BE TRUE. THERE’S A BIG DIFFERENCE. MAYBE IT’S A MISUNDERSTANDING... INTERESTING WORD, “MISUNDERSTANDING.”

Some misunderstandings are very hard to set right. What’s the big misunderstanding that’s bothering you?

WHEN I WAS A CHILD, I GOT THE DISTINCT IMPRESSION FROM SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHERS AND PREACHERS AND FROM MY OWN PARENTS AND THE PARENTS OF MY FRIENDS THAT THE BIBLE WAS AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL, A BOOK THAT WOULD ALWAYS INFORM ME, CHAPTER AND VERSE, HOW TO DO ANYTHING... AT LEAST, ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH PEOPLE. IN FAIRNESS I COULD SAY THEY MEANT RIGHT, BUT THEY WERE WRONG. I’M CERTAINLY NOT THE FIRST CHRISTIAN TO NOTICE THAT A LOT OF THAT STUFF WE WERE TAUGHT JUST ISN’T TRUE; AND I DON’T REMEMBER ANY VOICES THAT SAID, “IT ISN’T SO.” I THINK OUR PARENTS DIDN’T LET US GET NEAR ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INCLINED TO SAY IT ISN’T SO.

You’re being harsh. The Bible itself doesn’t claim all its stories literally happened. The Church does that. It has been The Church in its many forms over the centuries that has insisted the angels and the devils and the forms of God in its Bible stories are all absolutely accurate descriptions of real beings; so don’t go gettting angry at the Bible. There are many books that inform us on how to relate to others. The Bible is one of the best. You’re thinking the people who taught you believed the stories are all true. In a sense perhaps they are true; but maybe it would be more accurate to say they deal with truth. A story doesn’t have have happened, it doesn’t have to be biographical have truth in it. The stories I love most from great literature of the world are in a sense true. Alexander Solzhenitzyn died this month. He told stories that had in them so much truth about religion, philosophy and spirituality that they will always be read by people who are truth seekers. Вичная Памят. It doesn’t matter if Ivan Denisovich was an actual person any more than it matters if the woman drawing water at a well in a Jesus story was a real, live person. The truth of Ivan’s experience informs me and helps me know something about how I may get through rough days with honor. Jesus' stories are built around important kernels of truth. The stories inform me. So I don’t agree that we were deceived by those people who taught us when we were children.


DON’T GET ME WRONG. I HAVEN’T FALLEN OUT OF LOVE WITH THE BIBLE. WHEN I GOT HOME FROM CHURCH ONE SUNDAY RECENTLY, I REREAD THE STORIES IN THE BOOK OF GENESIS ABOUT ABRAHAM AND ISAAC AND ISHMAEL AND JACOB AND ESAU AND JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS. WOW! WHAT POWERFUL LITERATURE! I LOVE THOSE STORIES. I LOVE READING AND HEARING THEM.

The people you mention from the Book of Genesis are all men. What about the women?

THE STORIES COME FROM A DISTINCTLY PATRIARCHAL SOCIETY, SO THE MEN ARE THE HEROES. HOWEVER, THE WOMEN IN THE STORIES ARE AMAZING. MOSTLY YOU HAVE TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES TO DISCOVER JUST HOW AMAZING THEY WERE. THE EMPHASIS IS ON THE MEN, BUT THERE’S A LOT TO LEARN ABOUT LIVING FROM THOSE WOMEN... FOR EXAMPLE, TAKE THE STORY OF ESAU AND JACOB: WHAT’S BEST TO DO OR NOT TO DO IN A CRITICAL SITUATION INVOLVING SIBLING RIVALRY? A MOTHER WHO FAVORS ONE OF THE SONS OVER THE OTHER MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE... A DIFFERENCE IN THE HISTORY OF A NATION THAT IS STILL STRUGGLING TO KNOW ITS IDENTITY EVEN TODAY ALMOST FOUR THOUSANDS AFTER ESAU AND JACOB AND REBECCA WERE SAID TO HAVE LIVED. SO... O.K., THERE’S TRUTH IN THEM EVEN THOUGH THEY’RE NOT NECESSARILY TRUE STORIES.

I like to think those stories are not given to us so we can go out and do things the way Jacob did. I don’t like to think of you going to meet an angel or anybody else for a wrestling match down by the river... because under our special circumstance, I’d have to go with you; and I don’t want to wrestle an angel or god or whoever it was Jacob tussled with all night. The State of Israel today gets its name from the Jacob story, so it must be important. No wonder he got his hip out of joint. I’ve got my nose out of joint just thinking about it. I think it’s important for us to look closely at the story of Jacob getting the birthright and the blessing even though he was not the eldest son of his father and his father’s principal wife. There’s a lot to be learned from that story. For one thing, we are reminded that there are better ways of getting a blessing than by cheating and lying. I think it’s important to know that Esau got screwed, and to see that it wasn’t right...even if their mother was Jacob’s accomplice in the matter.

I can guess where you’re going with this discussion today. Remember I was with you yesterday when the group at church met to talk about the confusion over same-gender marriage... and I’ve been with you every second for seventy-three years, so I can tell when you’re determined not to let an issue drop.

YEP! I CAME AWAY FROM THAT DISCUSSION WITH A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUE. I CAN SEE MORE CLEARLY NOW THAT CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT IS NOT ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY AT ALL. THE SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICES AREN’T TALKING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY. THEY AREN’T TALKING ABOUT SEX AT ALL. SO WHY DOES THE CHURCH CONTINUE TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION THAT IT’S PROBLEM WITH SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE IS THAT BY OPPOSING PROPOSITION EIGHT IT WOULD IMPLICITLY GIVE APPROVAL AND PERMISSION FOR MEN TO BUGGER EACH OTHER AND FOR WOMEN TO DO WHATEVER IT IS THEY DO TOGETHER IN BED. FOR PETE’S SAKE, NO FOR GOD’S SAKE, WHEN ARE THE BEARDED FATHERS AND SAINTLY MOTHERS WHO MAKE THE RULES GOING TO SEE THAT WEDDINGS AND MARRIAGE ARE NOT ABOUT SEX AT ALL.

Maybe that’s where our society has gone most wrong. Maybe people have actually come to believe that weddings and marriage are about sex. It’s probably the easiest way to explain why so many marriages fail.

O.K. So what’s your new insight?

I REREAD THE CALIFORNIA SUPEREME COURT’S RULING THAT GAY COUPLES IN CALIFORNIA MUST BE GRANTED THE RIGHT TO MARRY. THE COURT HAS SAID THAT GAY PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS FIRST AND GAY SECOND, JUST AS HETEROSEXUAL PEOPLE ARE INDIVIDUALS FIRST, BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HOW OR WITH WHOM THEY HAVE SEX. THE COURT’S RULING IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS NOT ABOUT SEX. HERE’S WHAT THE COURT SAID:

“THESE CORE SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS INCLUDE, MOST FUNDAMENTALLY, THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO ESTABLISH--WITH THE PERSON WITH WHOM THE INDIVIDUAL HAS CHOSEN TO SHARE HIS OR HER LIFE--AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED AND PROTECTED FAMILY POSSESSING MUTUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND ENTITLED TO THE SAME RESPECT AND DIGNITY ACCORDED A UNION TRADITIONALLY DESIGNATED AS MARRIAGE.”

That’s straight forward stuff (no pun intended). So the individual citizen is guaranteed rights under the United States Constitution without qualifications or euphemisms, and before any consideration of the individual’s sexual orientation... or race or color or age or gender or... It seems pretty clear.

A PERSON IS AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN FIRST BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF ANY OTHER PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS... AND THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES EQUAL RIGHTS WITHOUT QUALIFICATIONS. A PERSON EXISTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL BEFORE ANY CONSIDERATION OF HIS OR HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION. WHAT THE CALIFORNIA COURT HAS SAID IS THAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO “THE OPPORTUNITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL” TO CHOOSE ANOTHER “PERSON’ TO “ESTABLISH A FAMILY” ...PERIOD. HETEROSEXUAL COUPLES WHO MARRY AREN’T REQUIRED BY LAW TO REPRODUCE IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED FAMILY. A FAMILY CAN BE TWO PEOPLE... I KNOW A BEAUTIFUL FAMILY OF JUST TWO PEOPLE, A MOTHER AND HER DAUGHTER. I KNOW COUPLES WHO HAVE CHOSEN TO HAVE NO CHILDREN, AND I KNOW COUPLES WHO HAVE REMAINED JUST TWO-PEOPLE FAMILIES BY CHOICE. ALL OF THEM ARE FAMILIES. ALL OF THEM ARE FAMILIES ACCORDED FULL RIGHTS BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SOME OF THEM ARE PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF AMERICA. THEIR INDIVIDUAL CITIZENSHIP AND THE LEGITIMACY OF THEIR MARRIAGES OR THEIR DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT DETERMINED BY HOW OR WHEN OR WITH WHOM OR IF THEY ARE SEXUALLY ACTIVE INDIVIDUALS. THE NOTION THAT CITIZENSHIP OR LIGITIMACY OF THEIR RELATIONSHIPS MIGHT DEPEND ON THEIR SEXUALITY IS ABSURD.

Oh, I get it! You’re sayng the Church’s ruling in its Book of Discipline is based on a misunderstanding of homosexuality: that the Church sees homosexuality as an activity, that gays are people who have chosen to behave badly. As a hedge the church includes gays in its general membership and even as minor employees (just as women were allowed partial participation before their full emancipation) because it apparently still considers homosexuality a condition that can be fixed if the gay person really puts his/her mind and prayers to it. In a spirit of mercy and openness the Roman Catholic church chooses to call homosexuality an “objective disorder." It's apparently O.K. to be "it" as long as you don't "do" it. The Methodist Book of Discipline doesn't put a specific name to it, but the intention is the same.

I know what you’re thinking. Don’t say it.

O.K. I WON’T SAY IT. I WILL SAY THAT WHEN THE CHURCH SEES GAYS AS INDIVIDUALS, AS WELL-ADJUSTED, NORMAL INDIVIDUALS, THE SAME AS HETEROSEXUALS, THE DISCUSSION BECOMES A DIFFERENT ONE. THE QUESTION IS A MATTER OF HOW WE TREAT INDIVIDUALS WITH AN INVOLUNTARY, DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC ALONG THE LINES OF GENDER OR RACE. FOR ALL MY PROTESTING AND INSISTING ON CHANGE, I'M NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE CHURCH. IT'S AN IMPORTANT INSTITUTION. IF ALL OF US LEAVE WHO ARE DISMAYED BY THE CHURCH'S RELUCTANCE TO CHANGE, IT IS NOT LIKELY EVER TO COME DOWN ON THE MORALLY RIGHT SIDE OF THIS ISSUE. I'M GOING TO HANG IN THERE, EVEN THOUGH I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL, EVEN ABHORRENT, TO CONTINUE MEMBERSHIP IN AN ORGANIZATION THAT PERSISTS IN MAKING SUCH A GRIEVOUS ERROR IN MORAL JUDGMENT... WHEN EVEN THE STATE IN WHICH IT EXISTS HAS CORRECTED ITSELF. IF THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY A MAJORITY VOTE REVERSE THE COURT’S DECISION BY CHANGING THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION, THE METHODIST CHURCH WILL HAVE BEEN COMPLICIT IN THAT REVERSAL. HEAVEN FORBID!

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 8.