Tuesday, July 24, 2012

The Real Trouble with Mormon Jokes


One of the more popular punch lines in religious jokes is the Mormon’s “magic underwear.”  From stand-up comedy to South Park to jokes between friends, the undergarments of Mormon adults make an easy target for humor.  I have to confess to having made a few less than generous remarks about them, much to my personal shame.  Mormons are one of the few groups it is still acceptable to make fun of in public and that is a matter of real shame.

The “magic underwear” is neither magic nor underwear.  Referred to as “the garments,” the two pieces resembling an undershirt and a pair of extra-long boxer briefs are a symbol for devout Mormons of their inclusion in a community.  One commentator compared it to a yarmulke or nun’s habit.  The garment marks a Mormon’s inclusion in the community following the endowment ceremony in the temple.

One day Mormons too will be off limits to “acceptable” humor. For my part, whenever I feel like making a “magic underwear” crack, I will ask myself if I would make the same crack about a yarmulke.  I cannot think of a circumstance when I would. 

Beyond the purely insensitive and tasteless nature of “Mormon jokes,” there is a larger theological question lingering.  What is it about us that needs to have a ready butt for jokes?  Since my childhood, I remember when it was considered socially acceptable to make jokes about African-Americans, Jews, GLBTQ people and, yes, Mormons in polite company.  In hindsight, I wonder just how polite that company could possibly have been.  The question maintains; what is it about us that needs to have a ready butt for jokes?

Let me start by acknowledging that not everyone makes off color jokes.  This is not meant to point fingers at any particular person or people.  Rather it is an observation about how we work as a culture.  There seems to be an unwritten rule that at least one group needs to be available to be the punch line at all times; some group has to be an outlier. 

It is important to belong to some community.  Even people who disdain community belong to the community of disdain.  But unless the community is popular, powerful or influential enough not to give a damn, there is an assumed social convention that we keep our membership in those communities to ourselves.  In a way, the garments of the Mormon tradition respect that convention.  They are worn under the clothes and do not come with a nametag that says, “I have on my endowment garments under my clothes.”  They are a very personal expression of devotion.  But their ubiquity makes them an assumed part of every Mormon adult’s life and an easy target for mockery.

There is a measure of “chicken and egg” to this pattern of humor at the expense of others as well.  Is this a symptom of our culture or is our culture a symptom of this tendency?
Whatever the answer to that question, one thing is certain.  Humor at the expense of a community of our neighbors coarsens and diminshes us as a culture. 

There is no easy answer.  Few things that matter have one.  But it is a question worth asking ourselves when we offer up a supercilious joke or make off the cuff remarks at the expense of a group or community.

Monday, July 23, 2012

A Radically Moderate Stance on Guns


As I left church on Sunday morning, I was asked a question that I am still unable to fully answer.  I was asked, “If you had been in that movie theatre [Aurora, CO] and you had a firearm [he mentioned a particular model that I do not recall], would you have hesitated to pull it and shoot that guy?”  When he asked the question, I gave him the only answer I could think of at the moment, “I don’t know.”

It is a tough question for a number of reasons.  Mostly, I just have trouble imagining what would be going through my mind at that moment.  My ego wants to think that I would heroically help people get out of the theatre and to safety all the while keeping an eye on the gunman and planning how to disarm him ala the movies.  I know I am not the only person who had that thought.  It is a difficult question to answer because it assumes a hypothetical that would never take place.  There is no circumstance that would convince me to carry a firearm into a crowded theatre so I would never be face with the decision in the first place.

After some reflection on the question, I think I have put my finger on at least part of why it is so tough to answer.  I do not accept the premise that what happened is somehow normal or expected.  That seems to be an undercurrent of many comments on this shooting.  People wonder why no one fired back as though midnight at the movies is the same thing as high noon in Tombstone.  Things that we anticipate happening in the world are easy to hypothesize about, but this is way outside those bounds.   The question I think we should be asking is not what I would do in this foregone reality, but what we as a society should be doing to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Part of the reason we avoid that last question is that it takes us into some territory that is uncomfortable.  But if we are going to talk about what happened in Aurora, CO we have to talk about guns and if we talk about guns we have to talk about how we can curtail the problem of proliferation of guns to people who have no business having them.

This is the point that most of my pro-gun friends tune me out.   But please a bear with me.  This is not a question of pro-gun or anti-gun.  The extremes on both ends of the political spectrum have worked to turn this into a zero-sum conversation in order to stop any sort of compromise from happening.  They have hijacked an important political and religious issue.  And make no mistake about it, gun-control is a religious matter (more on that below). 

Now those on the “pro-gun”side argue that any limitations on gun ownership are unconstitutional and lead us down a slippery slope toward banning all fire arms.  Reasonable gun control is neither of these things.  The Supreme Court decision that interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that individuals have the right to possess just about any weapon they choose required a Cirque du Soliel worthy contortions of language and logic.  It is highly doubtful that the Founders had in mind an individual owning a small arsenal of automatic and semi-automatic weapons designed for one purpose only, to kill another human being.  The slippery slope argument does not hold water either.  There are almost as many handguns in this country as there are people.  The FBI says there are over 200 million privately owned handguns in this country.  Count in the illegal and unregistered ones and there is one gun for nearly every man, woman and child.  The idea that any gun control is going to lead us down the slippery slope to banning all guns makes about as much sense as thinking that we could ban asphalt.  Nothing this deeply entrenched in our culture is going anywhere.

Those on the “anti-gun” side offer no better arguments.  They claim that guns must be banned in order to prevent crime and to bring the United States into line with other developed countries.  The crime prevention argument does not hold water.  Availability of guns is not the root cause of crime.  To fight crime we need to deal with education, health care, housing and poverty issues that are shown to be at the root of much crime.  From a theological perspective, crime is a manifestation of human sinfulness.  We were sinners with spears and swords just as we are with guns and assault weapons.  As for the cultural argument, it fails to realize that the US is a different society than European countries.  Guns and gun ownership are in our cultural DNA whether we like it or not.   When some European countries banned handguns, there was not much there to ban.  As noted above, in the US banning handguns, let alone all guns, would be a practical impossibility.

So what do we do?  How do we address this question from a practical and theological perspective?

Practically, we need to take a step back from the zero-sum battle lines that have been drawn on this issue and recognize that unfettered access to firearms is unwise and ridding them from the nation forever impractical.

The solution to this problem is found not in a purely policy focused conversation but one of public morality.  What sort of society are we hoping to create?  What values do we want to be reflected in our laws?  On the issue of guns, these questions are more important than usual because they offer us the chance to reclaim an important national debate and take it back from the lunatic fringe. 

So what values do we want to be reflected in our gun laws?

From a constitutional perspective, there is the issue of the right to “keep and bear arms.”  The 2nd Amendment is not going anywhere so we need to take it seriously.

From a social perspective, we want a society in which individual can be (not merely feel but actually be) secure that their life and liberty will not be violated.

From a moral perspective, we need a society that puts a premium on human life over personal liberty. 

Surely we can find some common ground there?  A responsible person who wants to own a firearm should be able to do so.  But is liberty really threatened by a thorough background check?  Or a firearms safety course?  Or even a limit on how many firearms one person owns? 

Put another way, was making guns easy to buy with no questions asked worth the price that was paid last week in that movie theatre?  If steps could be taken to keep guns out of the hands of an unbalanced person, is there any legitimate reason for not doing that?

I believe that the personal liberty we enjoy as citizens is important.  It is important as a means of keeping tyranny at bay.  It is important as a means of showing political respect to the individual.  It is important for creating space in society for differing opinions and perspectives to flourish and thrive side by side.  So protecting liberty is a valid and important thing.  But it is not the only thing.  Protecting society as a whole is vitally important.  And when we balance those two, individual liberty and safety for society, we have to remember that firearms present a very different issue than speech or press or other matters of constitutional importance.  When someone hurls hateful words, they do not draw blood.  A person abusing his or her right to free speech does not usually leave a trail of bodies in their wake.  The right to keep and bear arms does.  Guns are not like speech.  The person taking advantage of free speech may make me mad, but the person abusing his right to bear arms may leave me dead. 

As a citizen, I believe that individual liberty must be preserved whenever possible but not at the expense of the safety of others.

As a Christian, I don’t give much of a damn about liberty.  It is not a theological issue.  Personally, I would like to see all guns gone from our culture.  There is no legitimate Christian value that is forwarded by the owning much less the using of a firearm.  Jesus taught peace and respect for life as the central principles of our life in the world and love of God as the central principle of our life in whole.  There is no legitimate theological argument to be made for the liberty to carry a weapon designed to kill another human being.  At the same time I cannot buy into the argument that the ownership of a firearm of any kind is in and of itself a non-Christian act. 

Please don’t get me wrong, I do not buy into the NRA myth that “guns don’t kill people, people do.”  Yes, that is true but it is also true that the gun makes it much easier for that person to kill.  So let’s not let the guns off the hook quite so easily.  Do I think the world would be better without guns?  Yes, I do.  But I also think it would be better without many things that are not going anywhere anytime soon.  And if we can’t get rid of them, we can at least curtail their misuse. 

Part of living into that Christian life is using the intelligence and creativity that God has given us to find ways to make this world a little bit better, a little bit safer and a little bit more attuned to his message of grace and love.  Surely we have an obligation to put those tools to work on such a major issue as this. 

The debate over guns is yet another place where our society has accepted the zero-sum either/or duality of the radical extremes on the left and right.   So it is up to we who inhabit the middle to put our heads together and find solutions to our common problems that are both practical and faithful to our calling as brothers and sisters in the world. 

I am convinced that there is a solution to this long standing issue and we have an obligation to work toward a system in which honest and law abiding people can exercise their rights while still allowing the system to protect the innocent. 

Would stricter gun laws have prevented this shooting?  I don’t know.  I am convinced, though, that there is a place between the extremes where efforts to prevent tragedies such as this and preserving the liberty of individuals who feel the need to own guns can co-exist.

Nonetheless, I am still not sure how to answer the question posed to me on Sunday. 

Friday, July 20, 2012

The God I Know


As news of the tragedy in Aurora, CO continues to unfold, I am gratified that so many people have spoken out in these first hours and days about the importance of not using this tragedy to forward a political agenda.  Tragedies such as this are only compounded when they are used as craven political tools.  The President and Gov. Romney both showed patriotic leadership by suspending their political activities and calling for a day of mourning and respect.  

Unfortunately one politician has already tried to make hay of these events.  An advocate for making the United States an exclusively Christian nation (and likely only his particular brand of Christianity), Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas was on the radio today and forwarded his theory that this senseless tragedy is a symptom of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.”  The foolishness of that statement is manifest.  What is really troubling is what Gohmert says later in the interview.  He goes on to claim that God has been pushed out of national life and ask, “what have we done with God?”

Just a few days ago, George Zimmerman, the man who has admitted to shooting teenager Treyvon Martin on February 26 of this year.  Whether or not Zimmerman bears any criminal liability remains to be determined.  In the midst of the media frenzy, Zimmerman and his attorney went on FoxNews recently for an interview with Sean Hannity.  During the interview Zimmerman was asked if he had any regrets about that night.  Zimmerman responded that he did not saying, “I feel like it was all God’s plan.”  Zimmerman did later offer his prayers for Martin’s family.

Both Gohmert and Zimmerman invoke the name of God in reference to their narratives about world events.  Gohmert fears that God has been somehow banished from public life.  Zimmerman recalls an image of God as divine puppeteer drawing and relaxing the strings as world events unfold below.  These two conflicting images of God, one of a weak deity powerless before the forces of politics and one of a controlling deity manipulating human events without regard to consequence, are the two faces of a god of convenience invented to support the civil religion of modern America.

Although Zimmerman’s evocation of God as the cause of the events of that tragic night is troubling, more troubling still is the image of God Gohmert and so many others promote.  According to this narrative, a generically Judeo-Christian God wills that this be a Christian nation, however the evil forces of secularism have sidelined all things religious and banished God from the scene. 

Is this the same God who parted the seas and let the people of Israel pass from Pharaoh’s hands?  Is this the same God who, when the people strayed, sent prophet after prophet after prophet to call them back even in the midst of captivity?  Is this the same God who, in love and devotion, sent God’s only son into the world to live and die as one of us only to defeat death and rise again on the third day? 
There is a great song in the 1970's musical "One By One" which tells the story of Noah and his family.  Noah, whose confidence in God will not be shaken, sings the song "The God I Know."  The God he knows will never abandon them.  I thought of that song when I read Gohmert's remarks.  The God I know and the one he was talking about seem like very very different things.
This image of God as victim may be politically convenient but it is hardly biblical.  God’s covenant is not negated because no one particular understanding of the divine is forced on our public life.  God is not a victim of secularism.  God is God no matter what happens or what the world may do.

One of the reasons this narrative of “God as victim of secular humanism” finds such purchase in culture is that there is not a competing narrative.  If the only flavor of ice cream you taste is vanilla, then it is easy to think that all ice cream is vanilla.  The same is true for the gospel.  If the only gospel that is publicly proclaimed is the gospel of God as victim, it is no wonder that so many people view the church as little more than a cranky old man railing against the loud music and “progress.”

In truth, the narrative of Jesus Christ is more powerful than any politically expedient pseudo-theology can ever be. 

Jesus Christ says, “I am with you always.”  In the beauty, in joy, in sorrow, in hope, in despair and, yes, in a crowded midnight movie where human brokenness takes a deadly turn.  Christ is with the victims, their families, those who care for and treat their wounds and those who are charged with bringing a measure of safety and normalcy back to the city of Aurora and to us all.  Christ promises to be with us always and Christ is as good as his word.

Jesus Christ says, “You will be with me in paradise,” to the convict on the cross next to him.  In our shining moments of faith and in our deepest prisons of sin, Christ does not abandon us.  Christ is in the prison cell with the troubled young man who did this unspeakable thing, with his family and friends who seek some measure of understanding and with all who, captive to the brokenness of this world, need him most.  He is not there because any of us deserve for him to be there.  He is there because he is the Christ and the Christ does not forsake us.

Jesus Christ says, “put your sword back in its place for those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”  It is not upon us to exact vengeance on this young man but to fervently and ceaselessly pray for him and for the victims.  To pray, like the persistent widow and the faithless judge’s door, without ceasing.  Jesus Christ calls us to live a different way to live.

The God made known in Jesus Christ is not a weak willed generic deity hoping to be found worthy of political and social acceptance.  And God is not a petulant child who storms away because we do not do just as God expects us to.  No, the God made known in Jesus Christ is a God who, when floods, commandments, exile and prophets do not work, sends his only son to live, die and rise for us all.

That is the story of Christ and the story of Christ is the story of the church.  Christ does not wait for permission to love us or give himself for us.  And nothing, Congressman Gohmert, can relegate that story to the background. 

Stones or Cross: Which Shall Define Us?

* This sermon remains unpreached so I guess it is more of an essay or reflection than sermon.  I do plan to preach it at some point.  I am publishing it on here after a number of troubling conversations and messages in recent days.  One of the deepest and most profound problems with our society is the tendency to deal in absolutes to the point that disagreement necessarily becomes something akin to hatred.  That leads to coarsened language and perspectives on the world and one another. 

Stones or Cross?

1 Samuel 17

The Rev. Dr. Robert Wm Lowry


David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.

He stood ten feet tall, this Philistine, this one called Goliath.  The breadth of his shoulders matched only by the sight of his armor.  The earth must have shook under his feet as he emerged from behind the lines of Philistine chariots perched atop the mountain.  They too would have been a site to behold; the smoke rising behind them from the encampment, the noise of armaments being prepared for battle, the sound of thousands of men shuffling around, finding their places in line and dressing ranks to face the enemy. 

Facing them across the valley on the opposite side were the Israelites.  Led by Saul, they gathered to face this long time nemesis.  The battle would not be a fair match.  It never was.  The Philistines always seemed to have more men, more arms, more…luck.  The Israelites, making due with what they had, managed to win a few battles, skirmishes really, but all in all the scales tipped on the Philistines side.

Surely the appearance of Goliath would signal yet another trouncing at the hands of the Philistines.  Taunting the Israelites, Goliath issues a challenge.   If the Israelites can find one man who will fight Goliath and defeat him, the Philistines will not only surrender their army, but they will surrender their very selves as servants to Israel. 

Certainly there is one.  There must be one man.

There must be one in the whole nation of Israel who can face down the giant and free the people from the threat of the Philistines.

Of course there was.  YHWH would choose one from among the whole of the people.  An unexpected choice to be certain, but YHWH’s choice nonetheless.  David.  The shepherd boy.  The son of Jesse. 

Met with derision and surprise, he snaked his way through the lines of soldiers.   After long machinations and negotiations, he is finally led to the field of battle to face Goliath. 

The shepherd boy and the Philistine giant face to face.

So, David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.

Facing Goliath would certainly have been frightening for young David but killing him was easy.  This was not a man it was a Philistine.

As a Philistine, Goliath was an outsider; a worthy target of David’s stone.  Philistines were unclean, undesirable, uncircumcised and, in short, unimportant.  They lived outside the covenant and were, therefore, completely expendable.  The represented everything the Israelites were charged by God not to be.

Killing Goliath was not merely a military act, it was an act of faith.  It was the killing of that which the nation of Israel saw as opposed God and God’s command.  Philistines were not, after all, real people.  They were caricatures.  They were the cartoons drawn to show the folly of all that was outside the nation. 

When David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine, he was striking a blow for purity.  He was striking down the other, the unclean, the great unwashed.   

It is certainly easy to stand there cheering David on to victory.  I know that I locate myself there in the story around verse 51 when young David stands over the body of the slain Goliath and raises the giant’s sword over his head.  I can feel the sun on my face, smell the dust in the air and see the sights of the battlefield.  Fists pumping in the air, I join my voice with the crowd I imagine starting to gather to cheer on the boy who slew the giant.  Chanting DAVID, DAVID, DAVID! 

And surely this is a moment worthy of praise! 

Lying there on the ground is the greatest Philistine, the greatest unbeliever, the greatest of the unclean, unworthy and unfaithful.  The representative of all that is reprehensible, lay dead on the ground and the people were finally free of this menace.   If I could find the way, I wouldn’t mind arriving on the scene a few verses earlier.  Somewhere around verse 48, when Goliath walks out on the battlefield, because then I could pick up a rock.  I could stand there with David and strike a blow for good over evil.   

Eye to eye with evil, David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.

                And if David is a hero for his victory so, certainly, are we heroes when we cast a stone in the name of good.  Right?

Standing there over the body of the giant with my fingers clinched around the stone I so want to throw, I begin to wonder.  Is this stone really the way past this giant?  Am I really throwing this stone to defeat an enemy of good or am I throwing this stone to defeat my enemy?

My quarrel is not with David.  Even I, with all the things I throw out to you, am not going to second guess the motivation of Israel’s great king.   I chose to believe at face value what scripture tells us here; that the Giant’s challenge was truly a threat that demanded response from the people. 

No, it is not David who is indicted here, it is we.   We who make up the cheering crowd gathered around the body of the fallen giant.  We, who, with our bags full of stones, looking for places to throw them, seeing in our own reflections the face of God’s anointed, too easily find Philistines behind every corner.      We who locate ourselves in solidarity with the hero king and place on our own shoulders the mantle of responsibility for freeing God’s church, God’s world, even God’s very people from the threat of the Philistines of our own age.

David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.

The windswept winter landscape of Wyoming probably did not resemble much of that battlefield of ancient Israel.  There were no armies, no grand generals.  Yet, I imagine that somewhere in their minds Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney thought they were facing a Philistine giant.  Before them was their Philistine.  He was the embodiment of all that is wrong, even evil.  Before them was the face of that which needed to be destroyed.   This giant certainly did not strike the same physical presence as the giant of old.  This giant stood barely 5’7 and may have weighed 8 stone soaking wet.  Nonetheless, these two warriors for good reached into their bags, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.  In fact they struck this Philistine over and over and over again. 

Standing in victory like David, they looked down on the broken body of Matthew Shepherd and knew that they had done what was good, what was holy, what was right. 

They were heroes.

They were David.

Right?

After all, David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.

The sanctuary of First Presbyterian Church is the last place you would think to find a Philistine giant.  Yet there she was.  Standing at the microphone, recounting the tenants of her personal faith, with her every word the threat grew greater and greater.  We began to squirm in our seats, quietly caucusing in whispers to affirm that we were really hearing what we thought we were hearing.  Short notes passed from one to another until finally she finished and in that moment it was as if she had just emerged from the line of chariots to issue her challenge.  Two of the pastors sitting there in their discomfort, their bags of stones fastened around their waists, stepped to the microphone.  This Philistine, this conservative, was not going to enter their presbytery without a fight.  One by one they reached into their bags, took out a stone, threw it and struck the Philistine.  In fact the stones were thrown one after the other until finally this giant, rather than laying dead on the battlefield, stood defeated in the chancel.  A blow was struck by those pastors for theological purity.

We were heroes.

We were David.

Right?

After all, David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine.

Standing around the fallen giant, seeing in the face of the young heroic shepherd boy David the reflection of our own faces, it is just so easy to appoint ourselves defenders of the right and purveyors of divine justice. 

And like David, we put our hands in our bags, take out a stone, throw it, and strike the Philistine. 

We set ourselves up as defenders and saviors forgetting that it is in truth we who are the defended and we are the saved.  And it is not by the casting of stones but the tragedy of the cross.

In Christ, we are relieved of the burden of our bag of stones. 

In Christ, we are delivered from the prison of our fears and even the Philistine giant, the other, the outsider, the object of our deepest fears is made whole. 

David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it, and struck the Philistine, but Christ stretched out his arms, submitted to the cross and once and for all brought the outsider into the fold.    

We, who reside on the near side of the resurrection, are called not to clutch our stones prepared to cast them at the enemy, but to free our hands so we may carry their crosses and our own.  

In recent weeks, I have been reminded of how easily our fear can lead us to lay down the cross and take up stones.  Yes, yes our fear says it is all well and good that Christ lived, died and rose again to make us all one and to make us whole, but just in case we’d better throw a few stones at those undesirables just in case.  And if we look in David’s face and see our own looking back, then the face of the Philistine must be the face of the other; of them.   So we let loose with the stones.  And let’s face it; it is a hell of a lot easier to throw stones at something we don’t like than to accept that in Christ we are made one with them.  It is easier to reach into a bag and grab a stone than to reach out beyond our fears to the Philistine’s of our imagination and with them take up the cross of Jesus Christ. 

The apostle Paul wrote that there is no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female because we are all one in Christ Jesus.  He might have added that there is no longer young shepherd boy and giant Philistine. 

Whether, like those misguided men on a cold Wyoming night, we throw our stones at the object of our fear in the world or, like we misguided pastors judging one of our own, we throw them at the object of our fear in the church, we must put down the cross of Christ to take up the stones. 

David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, threw it and struck the Philistine.

Christ spread wide his arms and submitted to the cross. 

By which example shall we live?  In which is true victory won?

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Amen.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

On My Honor, I Will Do My Duty...

The Boy Scouts of America have had a profound impact on American life.  Many young men were formed by the traditions and vision of scouting.  I am one of them.  I was not the best Boy Scout, but I can say that my life was positively impacted by my time as a scout and my time as a Cub Scout leader.  It is because of that history that it pains me so much that the Boy Scouts of America have not only affirmed their discriminatory stance against gay Scouts and leaders, but done so at a time when GLBTQ youth are at risk of bullying and discrimination in so many other parts of their lives.

As a person of faith, it is not unusual to find yourself having to find ways to navigate between theological principle and realities in the world.  I am morally opposed to aggressive warfare, but I still pay my taxes that help fund aggressive war because it is part of the social contract that I pay my taxes and that I be allowed to speak against their use for war.   Although I would prefer a perfect world, this is the only one I have. 

Part of a healthy theological life is, I believe, living it publicly and using our theology as a foundation for living.  Do I propose forcing my own theological beliefs on anyone?  Of course not.  What I do propose is that a life of faith cannot be lived in isolation on Sunday mornings or within the community of faith as a whole.  It must permeate every aspect of our lives both public and private.  Sometimes those convictions and our daily living fit neatly together and sometimes they do not.  So it is not new for me to have to come to personal theological terms with a decision by an organization of which I am a part. 

But this is different.

After searching my heart and prayerfully considering what my conscience and spirit will allow, I have concluded that I can find no room for principled compromise with the Boy Scouts in the wake of this decision.  Although I still believe in the underlying principles of scouting and the importance of teaching young men the values of honor, discipline and good citizenship, I cannot agree with doing this by institutionalizing discrimination and homophobia.  As a Christian I cannot endorse the institutionalized discrimination against a whole segment of humanity for no reason other than prejudice.

I do not deny that it is the right of the Boy Scouts of America to set their membership requirements as they see fit.  The Supreme Court has spoken on this issue clearly.  It is their right, but that does not make it right.  It is in fact profoundly wrong for an organization that has a rich heritage of forming young men into good citizens to take a stance that is antithetical to the core values of the very democratic society they embrace. 
At the heart of scouting is duty and honor.  In fact the first words of the Scout Oath are "On my honor, I will do my duty to God and my country."  I belive those words.  It is because of that that I find myself duty bound to disaffiliate myself from the Boy Scouts.  It is the only way I can discern  to honor duty to my God who abhores human division and my country that is founded on the principle of equality.  This morning I wrote to the Quapaw Area Council which oversees the area of my home in Little Rock and expressed my strong disagreement with the Boy Scout’s decision and my decision to disaffiliate.  I deeply regret that both of those acts are necessary.

It is my fervent prayer that the Boy Scouts of America will rescind this decision, embrace the high calling of scouting and become a bold witness to young men that there is no place in an honorable life for discrimination.

Monday, July 16, 2012

A Word in Favor of the (NCAA) Death Penalty

45 days from today the world returns to normal.  College football season begins.   Fortunately the three teams I love to watch (the Arkansas Razorbacks, Michigan Wolverines and Texas Longhorns) are on TV pretty often so it is about guaranteed that I will have at least one game to watch each week.   I love college football and I love that it comes back year after year like an old friend.

It is because I love college football and college athletics in general that I have to join my voice to the growing chorus calling on the NCAA to impose the “death penalty” on Penn State’s football program.  For those who do not know, the NCAA death penalty bans a college or university from fielding a team in a particular sport usually for one or two seasons.  That means no practice, no recruiting, no scholarships, no TV money. 

The death penalty has been handed down only five times in the last six decades and in every instance the issue was one of NCAA rules infractions or, in the case of Kentucky basketball in the 1950s, cheating by point-shaving.  The Penn State case is different because it involves actual criminal behavior and conspiracy to allow that behavior to go unpunished. 
Some have argued that this fact demonstrates that the NCAA should stay out of the mix and allow law enforcement to do their job.  That the NCAA is not competent to act in these matters and that it would serve to punish the players and fans who were not involved in the cover up thus compounding injustice with injustice.

I disagree.

Law enforcement should, and doubtless will, do their job in bringing legal justice to those who are found to have broken the law.  And no matter what happens the fans and student athletes will be caught in the middle.  But the NCAA has a stake in this as well.  College athletics are perceived as being above the law, especially in big sport schools like Penn State.  For that reason alone, the NCAA must step in and shut down the Penn State football program for a period of time. 
But perception is hardly the only reason to penalize the program.  The program has materially benefitted from these actions in preserving their reputation and keeping the status quo.  Given the fallout that has come since Sandusky’s crimes (he was found guilty, they are no longer alleged) were revealed, it is no surprise that the Penn State administration and Athletic Department tried to keep a lid on things.  The program benefitted directly from their conspiracy of silence.  That cannot go unchallenged.

The NCAA should, at a minimum, shut down all football related activities for two seasons, institute a TV and bowl ban through January 2015 and halve scholarships through the 2014 season.  Current players and committed freshmen should be allowed to transfer without penalty and without loss of eligibility.  And Penn State should establish a victim’s relief fund for abused children in Pennsylvania in an amount equal to at least 75% of their 2011 TV revenue.  None of that will make up for what has happened but neither will Jerry Sandusky’s prison sentence make up for it.  What NCAA sanctions will do is what Sandusky’s prison sentence does; it makes clear that this sort of action will not be tolerated no matter what the status of the offender.  Since there is no possible way to make the punishment meet the crime, this will have to do.

So what, you may be asking, does any of this have to do with theology?  Simply this; sin.  We in the church are called to speak against sin and in favor of virtue in the world.  How we live, the good and the bad, impacts our world.  We are all responsible for our actions and we must be prepared to reap what we sow.  Too often we in the church get wrapped up in speaking of human sinfulness in terms of eternal and salvific contexts.  When we get distracted by thoughts of the hereafter and we forget that our sin has very real consequences in the world, we allow it to have control over our present while we are obsessing about the future.  The church has a theological stake in speaking up for a world in which those who do harm to others are brought to justice and in breaking down structures of power that protect those wrongdoers in the name of money, prestige, power, or even winning percentages.  We need to challenge our culture of no consequences by showing just how actions impact the world.

I am not suggesting that law enforcement or the NCAA become the enforcement wing of the church or that Penn State should be punished for some sort of commandment violating.  They should be punished for violating the laws that we all share as a society and the rules they share as an NCAA school.  By breaking those laws and rules, Penn State violated covenants.  If those covenants are broken without consequence, the world will become deaf to the vocabulary of covenant that we in the church are called to proclaim. 

Whatever we believe about the hereafter, certainly we can all agree that sin is alive and well in the world and we, the church, have a stake in creating communities in which covenants of all kinds are respected and violations of covenant bring consequences.
For the love of the game, for the love of God, the NCAA needs to act and show the world that another Penn State will not be tolerated.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Mormons, Malls and Millions (well, Billions)


“Jesus said, “If you want to be complete, go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor.  Then you will have treasure in heaven.  And come follow me.”  But when the young man heard this, he went away saddened, because he had many possessions.   -Matthew 19:21,22 CEB

A recent cover story on Bloomberg Businessweek has stirred up a good bit of controversy on the question of church finances.   The story explores the massive financial empire that is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).  What is so interesting is that the controversy has been more about the cover art on the magazine than about the content of the article. 

The cover depicts the moment recalled in Mormon history when John the Baptist confers the priesthood upon Joseph Smith.  The satirical scene features John the Baptist saying, “"and thou shalt build a shopping mall, own stock in Burger King, and open a Polynesian theme park in Hawaii that shall be largely exempt from the frustrations of tax ..." To be sure the parody is not as tasteless as the infamous Campari ad in Hustler magazine featuring a fictional interview with Jerry Falwell that led to a showdown in the Supreme Court.  Nonetheless, it has garnered a great deal of conversation and comment. 

The cover is in bad taste.  But it is not the issue.  The issue is a church that has more than $40 Billion in business holdings not to mention the $8 Billion in tithes received annually from the tithes of its members.  $40 Billion.  For the sake of perspective, the total market capitalization of Ford Motor Company is $35.4 Billion and the Mormon church has business holdings of $40 Billion. 

Nothing the Mormon Church has done is illegal or even unethical from a business perspective.  At least there is nothing notable enough to make it into the article or subsequent reporting.  There is nothing illegal about a church having large financial holdings.  The issue is not HOW they accumulated such massive holdings but THAT they did.  Like the old saying goes, it takes money to make money so at some points over time church leaders chose to use the church’s assets to buy land (more than 1,000,000 acres of US farmland), franchise businesses and real estate holdings.  In each of those transactions a conscious decision was made to use funds to build business assets rather than to feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick or bring comfort to those in times of need. 

That should give members and nonmembers of the church pause. 

That priority should be put on the relief of suffering in the world is at the heart of Jesus message.  I am not an expert on the Book of Mormon by any means, but I very much doubt that it seeks to overturn Jesus’ teachings to the degree that priority is not on profit.  When we, as individuals or communities, fail to remember Jesus’ call to care for the poor we find ourselves in position of the rich young man; fearfully clinging to the things of this world for fear of losing them forever.

When you control a vast financial empire that stretches into almost every part of life, can you be an effective witness against your own interest?   I other words, if you own shopping malls can you effectively speak against over consumption?  If you own fast food restaurants can you be an effective witness against predatory marketing toward children?  It is difficult to witness against the unjust structures of the world when you depend on those very structures for return on your investment. 

Our churches exist in the world and we have a responsibility to act both faithfully and responsibly with the assets in our care.  In some cases, it is the residual impact of generous gifts given in the past that make present ministries possible.  To be foolish or wasteful with the resources at our disposal would be to break faith with those who gave them.  We also break faith, this time with God, when we fail to use those gifts for the benefit of God's people. 
When Jesus tells the rich young man to sell all he has and give it to the poor, the young man is saddened because he feared losing what he had in this world.  He cannot bring himself to follow Jesus because the cost is just too high.  What if being church meant not owning  a shopping mall?  Or oil wells? Or whatever other assets may need to be disposed of if we are to be free to follow Jesus.  When the assets of the church become burdensome treasures and we begin to hold them back today for fear of needing them tomorrow, they cease to be a blessing to our shared ministry and become, instead, a stumbling block to faithfulness.
There is a fine line between responsible stewardship and fearful hoarding.  The call of the church is to live into the first without falling victim to the second.